Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Private Pensions

Mr. Dunn:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the number and percentage of individuals over official retirement age in receipt of one or more occupational or private pensions as at (a) 1 January 1978 and (b) 1 January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The number of people receiving occupational pensions increased from approximately 3 million in 1979 to 4·5 million in 1989. That represents an increase, from a third to nearly one half of that age group in 10 years.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State please confirm that pensioners' average income from occupational pensions has nearly doubled since 1979? Is not that strong evidence of the Conservative party's determination to continue to improve the living standards of those who are retired?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have increased the number of people receiving occupational pensions and the size of the occupational

pensions that they receive. Overall, during the past decade or so in which we have been in power, we have increased the living standards of pensioners on average every year by more than they increased in the entire five years under the previous Labour Government.

Mrs. Golding: The Minister is, as ever, concerned to speak about the haves, not the have nots. How many times does he need to be asked before he much gives needed help to the pensioners who are refused additional benefits because they receive only tiny occupational pensions? When will he speak about helping them? Would it not have been better to have used the £2,600 that it cost to install a satellite television in benefit offices in Nottingham to show golden oldie films to claimants, to help those pensioners who are in such desperate need?

Mr. Lilley: My reference to the improvement in living standards of pensioners covered all categories of pensioners, not only those in receipt of an occupational pension, welcome though it is that now; among those reaching retirement, two thirds have occupational pensions. However, in addition, we have increased provision for the least well-off pensioners as I was able to confirm in the uprating statement last autumn. I confirmed that an £½billion was to be channelled to pensioners through the pensioners' premium on income support, which was additional to the increase to compensate for inflation.
The hon. Lady may not want appropriate facilities in our benefit offices, but I believe that they should be good and appropriate to the needs of claimants.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible pensions policy, which seems to be advoated or toyed with by the Labour party's social justice commission, would be to means-test the state pension while at the same time do nothing to encourage—or perhaps even discouraging—the alternative methods of private pensions provision?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. There is an extraordinary new twist to the Labour party's policy. In the past, it undermined pensions by allowing inflation to


be rampant and now it appears that it is to consider means-testing pensions while, at the same time, discouraging private provision. One wonders whether it wants to help pensioners or to harm them.

Water and Sewerage Charges

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to increase that proportion of income support paid to contribute towards water and sewerage charges.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Water and sewerage charges are treated similarly to electricity and gas in that there is no separate identifiable proportion of income support.

Mr. Madden: Is it not about time that there was a specific, and substantial, amount? Is not the Minister worried that water disconnections are now running at the rate of 400 a week nationally, 50 a week in Yorkshire and 40 a week in the Minister's area? Is he not aware that, as water charges rocket, a large number of people on income support are having deductions made from their benefit to pay those charges? Is it not time for a ban on water disconnections in homes and an end to compulsory water metering?

Mr. Burt: In fact, the number of deductions made is about 3 per cent. of the total income support load, which shows that the vast majority of people are able to manage water charges. Water charges are analogous to electiricity and gas charges rather than to anything else. It is up to the water companies to make provision for low-income customers. Over the years, the electricity and gas companies have developed a variety of methods—often frequent payment methods—to help those on low incomes who might otherwise get into difficulties. The best way to prevent disconnections is for the water companies to follow that lead.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the important point the overall amount available to low-income families? Is not it a fact that income support for low-income families has gone well ahead of inflation in recent years?

Mr. Burt: Yes. The changes to income support made in the late 1980s enabled extra money to be channelled to low-income families. An extra £1 billion will have been spent by the end of the current year. The income support system, by providing premiums for disability and for families, tries to ensure that those who use more of a particular commodity, such as water, receive more money.

Mr. Kirkwood: The improvements made by the Government are welcome, as far as they go. However, does the Minister accept that water charges in the year to January 1993 went up by 10 per cent.compared with a 1·7 per cent. increase in the retail prices index? That position is set to worsen in the next 10 to 15 years as water authorities and local authorities in Scotland plan future capital investment in the water industry. Will the Minister at least consider the possibility of a formula or mechanism to take account of the drastic increases so that people who can hardly afford to buy food can at least afford water?

Mr. Burt: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, income support is not based on specific amounts for particular goods, simply because

people on low incomes want the opportunity that everyone else has to spend what they want on different commodities. A change to that system would be a massive administrative change and I am not convinced that it would work to the benefit of low-income families. The national proportion of deductions for water charges remains at about 3 per cent. which suggests that the majority can manage.
The difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with the increasing investment in water must be covered by the water companies and by their charging policies. The electricity and gas companies do that far better than the water companies. The Office of Water Services has recommended that all water companies should provide at least one frequent payment method. That would go some way towards alleviating the concern, which I share, expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others about disconnections.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that those on income support can look forward to an increase in their living standards in April because income support rates will rise by more than the rate of inflation? Can he also confirm that the introduction of the council tax will benefit those who are on community charge benefit and in receipt of income support?

Mr. Burt: Yes. The amount that was previously in income support to cover the 20 per cent. payment of community charge has not been clawed back. It will provide £750 million for low-income families—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff; it shows what they think about amounts such as £750 million. Once again, large amounts are like water to them.

Mr. Spearing: In so far as there is support for the rapidly rising water charges, is not the Minister aware that those charges cover potential losses incurred by the water companies in any business in virtually any part of the world? Will he look into the matter and will he confirm, or otherwise, that those charges and public money will defray the possible losses incurred by the companies virtually anywhere?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat from my responsibilities. As I said, responsibility for water charges rests with the water companies. There are different ways in which the companies can help low-income customers.

Unemployment

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's budget in 1992–93 can be accounted for by unemployment.

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount spent in the course of a year on benefits for those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

Mr. Burt: The estimated cost of unemployment benefit, housing benefit and social fund payments to unemployed people represents some 12 per cent. of my Department's budget. It is not possible to provide separate figures for benefit expenditure in respect of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that that amounts to billions and billions of pounds a year, and that


that goes a long way to explain why the proportion of national wealth taken in taxation by the Conservative Government now is higher than the proportion taken by the Labour Government in 1979? Will he guarantee that the Government will try to cut that sum—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—by reducing the number of unemployed and not by cutting the scope or value of benefits for the unemployed?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman almost dug a trap for himself but tried to extricate himself from it. The Government share the view of everyone that the best way to deal with unemployment benefit costs is to reduce the number of unemployed. The Government intend to provide practical help for those who are unemployed and we are, indeed, providing more practical help and advice than ever before for those who are looking for work.
It should also be recognised that the employment market is never static. In January, there were 180,000 vacancies in Jobcentres—the highest figure for two years—and the Department of Employment and the Employment Service are constantly working to put people back into work. Last year they placed 1·3 million people and this year they hope to place 1·5 million people. I persist in saying that the best way to ensure that more people are employed is to ensure that interest rates and inflation are low. Those are precisely the policies which the Government are pursuing, and we shall see more jobs as a result.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister agree that his answers—and I am being generous—further illustrate the substantial impact that mass unemployment is making on his Department's budget and priorities and the fact that it is distorting the way in which we meet need? Does he agree that that is further evidence that Britain cannot afford unemployment, and that what the unemployed need is not income support but jobs—not workfare but fair work?

Mr. Burt: I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's question; I am happy to agree with it. Despite the recession, Britain has the highest percentage of people in work of any country in the European Community apart from Luxembourg and Denmark. Vacancies at jobcentres are at a two-year high and confidence among the business community has increased. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have a vested interest in reducing confidence, but he should remember that he does not speak for the nation. We are determined to come through a very deep world recession with confidence, and to emerge from it with jobs, industry, dignity and success.

Mr. Evennett: Can my hon. Friend confirm that,, since the Government came to office in 1979, social security expenditure has increased by two thirds in real terms? Will he reaffirm the Conservative party's, and the Government's, belief in channelling benefits to those in the greatest need and confirm that we will continue to do that until we ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The Government place the highest priority on ensuring that benefits go to those most in need, while making sure that the economy works so that there are fewer unemployed in future. What the unemployed need, more than benefit, is jobs.

Mr. Congdon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that now that base rates are down to 6 per cent., they are the lowest in Europe and that that provides the best basis for future growth and hence a reduction in unemployment?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is quite right. Such statistics provide the basis for jobs in the future to which I referred.

Mr. Dewar: But will the Minister confirm that the 12 per cent. of his budget that goes on unemployment amounts to the frightening figure of £10·4 billion in the coming year? Is not that a condemnation of the destructive policies that the Government are following? If the Minister recognises that the real cure is to reduce the number in the dole queues, does not he have a duty to back policies designed to achieve that end, rather than holding to the rather primitive view of the Secretary of State that Governments should do nothing? Specifically, does he agree with his colleagues in the Department of Employment that the principle of workfare must be rejected because it would lead to
a low wage, low productivity economy"?

Mr. Burt: The Government have no intention of introducing a workfare model in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have been providing as much practical help for the unemployed as possible and the Department of Employment is doing just that. At the start of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he persisted in trying to suggest that unemployment and the recession are purely British phenomena. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends some of his spare time visiting his socialist friends in France who will very shortly be spending rather more time with their families because they are about to be thrown out of office. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not have the distinction of being thrown out of office—simply because they were too awful to gain office in the first place.

Pensioners

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help has been directed to lower income pensioners in the last three years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Poorer pensioners received extra help worth £70 million in April 1991,£60 million in April 1992, £315 million in October 1992 and they will gain a further £260 million this year because although income support recipients will no longer have to pay local taxes, their benefit will not be reduced.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that pensioners' average income from savings has more than doubled since 1979 while between 1974 and 1979 pensioners' average income from savings in real terms fell by 16 per cent? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is powerful evidence of the poverty that socialism brings for those on fixed incomes in comparison with the success of Conservative polices?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. My hon. Friend put it extremely well.

Mr. Olner: The Minister could not have put it better herself.

Miss Widdecombe: I could hardly have put it better, but I will now supplement my hon. Friend's comments by


saying that inflation is the single biggest evil facing pensioners in their endeavours to save for their od age. The Labour Government managed so successfully to wipe out pensioners' savings in the inflation years of the 1970s that the net result was that many of the older pensioners who can no longer rely on their savings have had instead to be rescued by our package of help for poorer pensioners. We have much to be proud of and Opposition Members should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Winnick: If anyone should hang their heads in shame Government Ministers should. Do they not realise that millions of pensioners, especially pensioners who rely on the state pension and supplementary benefit or who perhaps have a small occupational pension, are in a desperate state because of low incomes? Why do so many pensioners ask Members of Parliament—they have certainly asked me this and I am sure that they have asked Conservative Members the same question—who won the last war? They ask that when they compare their plight with that of people in other European countries like Germany.

Miss Widdecombe: What they do know is that the pensioners won the last election. Our policies are such that pensioners are very much better off than they would have been if we had had a resurgence of Labour's policies which is all that Labour promised at the last election. As for pensioners having to rely on the state pension, very few people in this country have to manage on the state pension alone. It should not be forgotten that those who receive income support to supplement their state pensions can have 100 per cent. of their rent paid; 100 per cent. of their council tax paid and, in many cases, they can double the value of their state pensions.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that on average, pensioners' income increased by 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1993? My hon. Friend might like to contrast that with what happened under the Labour Government. Is it not important to continue to ensure that any funds available from the taxpayer go to those in greatest need rather than to increases across the board?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. That is why our support plan for pensioners in the greatest need is worth about £1 billion a year. It is quite true that pensioners' incomes from all sources have risen by 30 per cent. since the Government have been in power. That is because, among other things, of our policy of encouraging occupational pensions, which was so deeply scorned by the Opposition, and of creating personal pensions. The Opposition fought against the incentives that enabled people to take up those pensions.
The Government are wholly committed to the pensioner and to pensioners' incomes. We are not blinkered in believing that the only source of income is the state pension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] As Opposition Members are shouting, "Boring", they obviously find the problems of pensioners boring because they do nothing about them.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the pension is now equivalent to about 15 per cent. of the average weekly wage and that it has fallen dramatically in the past 14 years? Widows of retired miners in my constituency get £10 or £11 from British Coal, as a result of which they are disqualified from many of the benefits that the Minister

mentioned. Pensioners in many other countries throughout the world, including some in the so-called Common Market countries, receive pensions that equate to 50 or 60 per cent. of average weekly earnings. Those retired miners' widows get nowhere near that, and if they surrender their coal allowance and take money for gas in lieu they lose every penny of housing benefit that they receive.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was most unwise to mention other countries in the Common Market, because we do better by pensioners on half average earnings than do most of our European neighbours. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because in, for example, Germany and France there is no basic pension. The pensions that he mentioned are for higher earners and are earnings related, whereas Britain has a flat basic-rate pension available to all who have paid national insurance contributions. The value of the state pension has been more than maintained since 1979, and those whose entitlement to coal takes them slightly above the income support level can still, in certain circumstances, get help with other income-related benefits.

Family Credit

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current size of the family credit caseload.

Mr. Lilley: At the end of October 1992, there were 450,000 families receiving family credit.

Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department expects to spend more than £850 million on family credit in the forthcoming financial year? Does he agree that that is a sensible way of channelling Government resources to ensure that people are better off in work than out of it and are not caught in a poverty trap when they take on employment?

Mr. Lilley: I confirm my hon. Friend's point. We expect to spend £864 million in 1992–93—13 times the real value of expenditure on family income supplement, which this benefit replaced. It does an excellent job in enabling people to return to work without loss of income.

Mr. Rooney: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in many ways, family credit is a taxpayers' subsidy to the bad employer, and does he recognise the poverty trap in which people on family credit find themselves, with a claw-back rate of 93 per cent?

Mr. Lilley: I do not accept that, because pay levels are set according to a range of people who are in and are seeking employment, not just those with families. It is not surprising that the Opposition try to snipe at this benefit because it was introduced by this Government. The Labour party has never done anything to deal with the problem and it should turn its mind constructively to doing so, not destructively.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of hours that have to be worked to be eligible for the benefit have recently been reduced from 24 a week to 16? Is not the impact of this change that more families will be eligible and helped by the benefit?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, my hon. Friend points to an important development. As a result of this change in the hours rule,


60,000 extra families are already in receipt of this benefit and it is open to a wider number of people. I am sure that improvement in benefit will be widely welcomed by Conservative Members, even though Opposition Members do not seem to welcome it.

Mr. Bradley: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that a large proportion of the increase in family credit claimants is due to the change in the definition for income support of full-time work? Is he aware that many people who would have been entitled to income support from April 1992 onwards are now worse off because they cannot get help with their mortgage costs? Will he give an estimate of the number of people who have lost their entitlement to help with their mortgage interest charges as a result of the change in the hours rule, and will he urgently consider helping people on low incomes with their mortgage costs to ensure that no one is disadvantaged from taking up a job because they cannot afford to do so following the change in the hours rule?

Mr. Lilley: The number of people on this benefit has increased by 100,000 over the past year. As I said, about 60,000 of that is due to the improvement of the hours rule in respect of eligibility for the benefit.
I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question to see whether I can give him figures for the impact on income support and I shall write to him.

Pensioners (Telephones)

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had a telephone in 1979 and in 1990.

Miss Widdecombe: Only half all pensioner households had a telephone in 1979. This had risen to 87 per cent. in 1990 and 89 per cent. in 1991. This of course reflects the general improvement in pensioners' living standards since we took office in 1979.

Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that there has been not only an enormous increase in telephone ownership among pensioners, but a vast increase in the number of pensioner households with central heating? Does she agree that that is striking evidence of how the Government's economic policies have enormously benefited millions of pensioners?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed, I am pleased to confirm that, whereas in 1979, when we got rid of the Opposition, about 43 per cent. of pensioners had central heating, today 76 per cent.—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This has been remiss of me. The question relates to telephones and I should be glad if questioners and those who answer would relate their remarks directly to the question on the Order Paper.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, if I am out of order. A telephone is a consumable durable, as is central heating—

Madam Speaker: Order. In my book, there are two lines to this question, which asks
how many pensioner households had a telephone in 1979 and in 1990.
That is the question to answer.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Given the Minister's reply, will she acknowledge that any suggestion tomorrow that VAT should be added to the cost of public utilities, such as telephone charges and other public utility charges, would have an extremely detrimental effect on pensioners' living standards?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady does not seem to understand what VAT is already charged on.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many pensioners in Bolton are using their telephones to ring the hotline run by Bolton hospital to seek counselling and advice on the problem of the doctor who had AIDS? Will she ask the Department of Health to give the hotline a little more information—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now trying my patience. The question relates to the number of telephones. It has nothing to do with passing on information to Health Ministers. Does the hon. Gentleman have a direct question related to the question on the Order Paper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Leave it to me.

Young People (Benefits)

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people between the ages of 16 and 21 years are in receipt of benefits.

Mr. Lilley: It is not possible to give a single figure since some young people receive more than one benefit. But in 1991 there were 490,000 claiming income support, 143,000 claiming either housing benefit or community charge benefit, 49,000 claiming unemployment benefit, 34,200 on severe disablement allowance and 9,200 receiving family credit, plus small numbers on other benefits.

Miss Lestor: When does the Minister intend to do something about what amounts to a penalty on education and training for the large number of young people who are trying to continue in some form of education? They cannot find a job, yet they are penalised because they cannot get benefits. I remind him of the case in my constituency—I am sure that it has been repeated all over the country—of two young men serving apprenticeships who, when their firm went bust, tried to continue a college course to gain qualifications over a period of a year or two. They were denied benefits and thus became a burden on their families. Surely that is a penalty on education and training.

Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Lady knows, there is an allowance for those aged 16 to 17 on training schemes, but benefit has never been paid to those in school or further education. If there is a choice between spending money on maintenance or on increasing and improving education, we have opted for the latter. I am pleased to say that the number of people staying on at school and going on to further and higher education has increased enormously. If the hon. Lady thinks that there is a penalty, happily the vast majority of people are ignoring it and recognise the benefits of education, which is the important thing to get across.

Mr. Willetts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that since 1979 the number of people in the 16 to 21-year-old age group going into higher education has more than doubled and that there has been an enormous expansion in


the number of training places? Was not the story of the 1980s a significant extension of public responsibility for people in that age group?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend puts it clearly and that is the case. On training alone, nearly 300,000 people are on youth training courses provided by the Government, compared with only 7,000 in 1978 when the Labour Government were in power.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Government's cuts in benefits for young people have directly resulted in large numbers of them sleeping rough on the streets, what are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Lilley: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Far from cutting expenditure on that age group, we have substantially increased it through our increased spending on youth training. It was right to move away from a system in which people automatically had access to income support on leaving school and to replace it with the opportunity to stay on at school or to go to further or higher education or on a youth training course. The important thing is to activate and implement the guarantee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has seen to it that every training and enterprise council has the money to implement that guarantee and see is vigorously ensuring that they do so. If young people do not have a place on a guaranteed training scheme, income support is available, even though they are aged only 16 or 17.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that millions of taxpayers think that it is absolutely right that 16 and 17-year-olds who are not at school or in a job should be required to do youth training if they want to get assistance from the state? It is right that benefits are available only in the most exceptional circumstances to people in that age group.

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that that is the widely held view of the majority of people, especially of parents and young people, who want to make productive use of their lives rather than go straight on to benefit. I believe that 7,000 people are having to wait more than eight weeks for a place on a youth training scheme and that 3,000 have been offered a place, but it was not satisfactory.

Disability Allowances

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of advertising the disability living allowance and disability working allowance in 1991–92; and what is his estimate of the total expenditure on such advertising for 1992–93.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The answer is £6·4 million and £1·9 million respectively.

Mr. Flynn: Was the £2·5 million spent at this time last year on advertising those benefits an act of incompetence or something worse, as 94 per cent. of applicants for disability working allowance did not qualify because they were cruelly misled by Government advertising, which was targeted on winning the election for the Tories? Will the Government repay that £2·5 million in taxpayers' money and tell us where the £17 million donated anonymously to

the Tory party's election chest by foreign millionaires came from? The Italians have confessed that their electoral—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the question. He was perfectly in order at the beginning.

Mr. Scott: Our advertising for disability living allowance, which formed part of the hon. Gentleman's question, was spectacularly successful in attracting claimants for that allowance and has resulted in more than 400,000 awards in the intervening period. I, too, am disappointed in the take-up of disability working allowance, but it is a new concept and many people confused the two allowances and claimed for the wrong one. I am anxious to ensure that as many people as possible can take advantage of disability working allowance, which, for the first time and almost uniquely in the world, will provide disabled people who wish to work and who are able to do so with the option of having their earnings topped up by a Government benefit.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Can my right hon. Friend quantify the total increase in expenditure on the disabled since 1979?

Mr. Scott: In broad terms and in real terms, expenditure has trebled since the Labour Government left office and we assumed responsibility for such matters.

Ms Eagle: If the disability working allowance is such a success, how many people are receiving it?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Lady was rehearsing her supplementary question rather than listening to what I said. I said that I was disappointed with the take-up of disability working allowance and was anxious to see—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] About 2,500 people receive disability working allowance and I am anxious that that is increased as quickly as possible. A little bit of help, instead of those sort of remarks from Opposition Members, would help us to spread knowledge of this benefit. They could help in that way.

Pensioners

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of extra help which has been directed to less well-off pensioners since 1989.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, by April, the total extra help given to pensioners on income-related benefits since October 1989 will be worth around £1 billion a year.

Mr. Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate her on it. However, does she accept that difficulties arise increasingly among people who are just above the general benefit level? For example, someone in my constituency wrote to me only last week to say that he was facing a bill of £500 from South West Water, on an income of just under £6,000. Can anything be done to help such people, who qualify for no benefit at all?

Miss Widdecombe: Those who do not qualify for income support can qualify for housing benefit or council tax benefit and to be eliminated from receiving those, people must have savings of £16,000 a year or an income that is substantially above the income support rate.


Although we always have those limits under review and although we have raised them each year and more than in line with inflation recently, as has been pointed out, we believe that the system strikes a fair balance between those who have resources and savings and those who do not.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Investment Policy

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions they have had with their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church on investment policy.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Although the Commissioners have no exactly comparable counterpart in the Roman Catholic Church, they discuss a wide range of investment issues with representatives from other denominations, including the Roman Catholics, at regular Church investors' meetings.

Mr. Banks: I am delighted to hear it. May I suggest that next time that the Church Commissioners meet representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, they discuss investment possibilities in child care facilities in Bosnia, in view of the grotesque advice offered by the Pope to Bosnian women who have been raped by sub-human Serbian scum that they should have the babies? If the Pope has no better advice to offer women who have been subjected to rape, I suggest that he stays inside the Vatican and contemplates the evils being perpetrated on women in this world.

Mr. Alison: As a fellow Church Commissioner, Madam Speaker, no doubt you appreciate the significance of the church-state link, as demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that his observations lie somewhat outside the scope of the Church Commissioners, whose finances are regulated and controlled by statute and have to be directed according to certain specific conditions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a large number of lay people in all the Churches dip into their pockets privately to contribute towards the relief of the Bosnian crisis.

Archbishop of York (Palace)

Mr. Bates: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what are the annual running costs of the Archbishop of York's palace at Bishopsthorpe; what the accommodation comprises; and what is its latest valuation.

Mr. Alison: In 1992, maintenance costs at Bishopsthorpe were £20,600. The accommodation includes domestic living quarters, state rooms—hall and drawing room—a chapel and offices. The value of such a piece of our historic heritage is incalculable. The Commissioners have it insured for £4·6 million.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it may be of some considerable interest to my constituents who heard His Grace the Archbishop recently on BBC television taking the Government to task for the measures that they were taking for alleviating poverty and homelessness? Given that the

Church Commissioners administer a portfolio of equities to the value of £0·8 billion and a property portfolio worth £1·2 billion, may not the message from my constituents to their Archbishop in future be that Archbishops in expensive glass palaces should not throw stones?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend criticises the attacks made by the Archbishop of York, from his palace, on the Government. If the Commissioners or the Government were to make the Archbishop homeless, I fear that his attacks would be likely to be exacerbated and not moderated.

Mr. Frank Field: When is the report of the inquiry into the Commissioners' assets expected and will it be published?

Mr. Alison: It will be published. I cannot give the exact date when it will be available.

Marriages (Fees)

Mr. Madden: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the level of clergy income from fees for performing marriages.

Mr. Alison: In the year to 31 March 1992, church and churchyard fees received by clergy totalled about £5 million, but no central records are held of the amount specifically attributable to marriage services.

Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he accept that any cleric who was dependent on fees from marriages performed in the Chapel would have an extremely lean time? Will he do what he can, with the Church Commissioners and perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury, to have discussions with the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker to see whether the Chapel can be registered for marriages so that a wider range of marriages than hitherto could be conducted in the Crypt?

Mr. Alison: I shall make representations—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ordination of Women

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the estimated financial effect on the Church Commissioners of the introduction of women priests.

Mr. Alison: Any direct additional stipends' costs will be met by dioceses rather than the Commissioners. However, the cost of financial provision for those who leave on conscience grounds will be a statutory charge upon the Commissioners' general fund and will reduce the amount available for other purposes. The gross cost per 100 men is estimated to total £4·6 million of income spread over a period of up to 20 years.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while we are pleased to serve under the first woman Speaker, we are looking forward to women priests and the first woman bishop in the Church of England and many of us would regard the sum to which my hon. Friend referred as a price worth paying to get women as fully fledged priests and bishops?

Mr. Alison: I voted in the General Synod for the ordination of women measure and I shall be responsible for piloting the measure through the House. I echo the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I hope that he will be prepared to stay up late and, if necessary, vote on the issue when the measure is debated on the Floor of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Commercial Court

Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to reduce delays in the commercial court.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Plans to appoint 10 additional High Court judges were announced recently, together with plans to establish management information systems to enable long-term decisions on the size of the judiciary to be based on proper management information about workload and throughput and on consideration of other ways of handling the load.
The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have agreed that some of the additional judge power will be available to address any continuing problems in the commercial court.

Mr. Ottaway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his response to the matter, which I first raised in my recent Adjournment debate? Will he accept the congratulations of the business community, which has been most concerned about delays in the commercial court? Does he agree that a further way of taking pressure off the judicial system would be to give some support to an alternative disputes resolution service, which, again, would be warmly welcomed by the business community?

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his gracious remarks. The Lord Chancellor welcomes initiatives in alternative disputes resolution services in the widest sense. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friend's professional connections will have helpful contributions to make, based on their considerable experience.

Courts (Dress)

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on standards of dress in courts of justice.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issued a consultation paper on court dress last summer, inviting the views of the public, the judiciary and the professions. The period for submission of responses ended on 31 December 1992 and an analysis of them is now under way. It is hoped that the outcome of the analysis will be available next month.

Mr. Martin: May I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. As for the wearing of wigs, I would not wish to suggest to my hon. Friend in particular that lack of hair on the head implies any less competence or wisdom. Will he confirm that he will not give any undue encouragement to those who wish to prevent barristers, both male and female, from wearing wigs in courts where it is now customary to do so?

Mr. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend seeks to imply that I am bald, which is fine and also true. However, had he even hinted that I was follicly challenged, I would have had something to say about it. I am not disposed to tell others not to wear wigs, but I certainly will not be wearing one myself.

Mr. Enright: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the wearing of hats even funnier than those worn in the House and the putting on of what appear to be nighties outrages the sensibilities of many people in Yorkshire?

Mr. Taylor: I did not know that this was a specifically Yorkshire question, but I defer to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Yorkshire. No doubt he speaks heartily for all his constituents.

Women Judges

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to increase the number of women judges.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office those best qualified, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion. Without prejudice to that overriding principle, the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly stressed that he would like to see more suitably qualified female legal practitioners appointed to the judiciary.

Mrs. Gorman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the massive imbalance between men and women judges. Of about 1,000 judges in Britain, only 61 are women. There is not a single woman out of 10 Lords of Appeal; only two women out of 13 judges in the family division; and only 24 women out of 463 circuit judges.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as women are very good when put on the bench as magistrates, it is time to reconsider the criteria for appointing judges? Is not it terribly important, as so many elderly gentlemen judges hand out wholly inadequate sentences in cases of abuse of women, especially rape—judgments which I think would be different if the judge were a woman?

Mr. Taylor: I sympathise with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said—

Mr. Corbyn: What is the Parliamentary Secretary going to do about it?

Mr. Taylor: As I have said previously, the Lord Chancellor can appoint only from the recruiting ground, by age and experience—

Mr. Corbyn: Change the recruiting ground.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Taylor: The recruiting ground is, to a degree, self selecting because it is necessary for members of the professions to offer themselves for part-time judicial office. [Interruption.] Quite clearly, the mood of the House is not sympathetic to my answer.
Hon. Members might be more sympathetic if I point out that the number of women joining the professions has increased greatly during recent times. Therefore, when they have a little more experience and are of a suitable age for judicial appointment, a great number of them will be available for appointment. The House should be aware


that that is already beginning to show through. At the lower rungs of the ladder, women assistant recorders represent 12 per cent. of the judicial community and, among assistant recorders in training, 14 per cent. are women. I am quite prepared to admit that there should be more, but the trend is in the right direction.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that as the average woman has had to deal with male children and a male husband, she is perfectly capable of judging the behaviour of even the strangest of people who come before her? Will the hon. Gentleman be more positive in his efforts? Frankly, although we are delighted by the number of women now entering the profession, to wait another 30 years for the millenium would be simply to repeat the position in the House, where all the men tell us that if we wait long enough, something will happen.

Mr. Taylor: I am asked to say what, perhaps, has already taken place. The Lord Chancellor has operated age limits flexibly in respect of women candidates. He has asked that women be included wherever possible in the list of those under consideration for appointment. Specific reviews of female candidates are carried out from time to time. The Lord Chancellor has co-operated with the bar in research into sex equality at the bar and in the judiciary and he is considering the findings of that research.
In 1992, two more women were appointed to the High Court Bench and both assigned to the Queen's Bench division—the first women to be so assigned.

Lay Magistrates

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the figures for the number of lay magistrates in office in England and Wales in 1992.

Mr. John M. Taylor: At 31 December 1992 the number of active justices in office in England and Wales, including those within the area of responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was 29,686. This compares with 29,441 for the previous year and 27,926 at the end of 1987. In short, the number of magistrates is going up.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that considerable concern has been expressed publicly among the magistracy about the effects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. What is his response?

Mr. Taylor: I am endeavouring to travel widely throughout the country to talk to magistrates, not least about the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice". They tell me of their concerns, which I pass on to the Government. I remind my hon. Friend that questions of changing criminal law are for the Home Office.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give consideration to the low numbers of black and women lay magistrates appointed? Will he also examine carefully the problem that too many magistrates do not in any way reflect the communities over which they are asked to make judgments?

Mr. Taylor: The number of women magistrates is rising and is now 46 per cent. of all magistrates. The number of ethnic minority representatives varies between 4 and 5·4 per cent., which reflects their numbers in our society generally. As to the policial orientation of magistrates, I

remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that they are drawn from among those who apply. One cannot appoint people who do not apply.

Mr. Boateng: We know that lay magistrates and their clerks spend time informing the Minister and the Lord Chancellor of their concerns in relation to the administration of justice. Will the Minister and the Lord Chancellor show some indication that they are listening? Lay magistrates throughout the country are sick and tired of receiving diktats from the Lord Chancellor's Department which show it to be much more informed and influenced by market policy and the Government's obsession with their own ideology than it is with the interests of justice.

Mr. Taylor: That criticism lies unfairly on the head of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has been an exceptional supporter and proponent of the lay magistracy. He supports it on all occasions and I seek to do the same. I do not know a man to whom applying the word "diktat" would be less appropriate than my noble and learned Friend.

Female Magistrates

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what efforts his Department are making to obtain the appointment of more female magistrates.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor, through his advisory committees, seeks to achieve a balance in the appointment of men and women. At 31 December 1992, 46 per cent. of magistrates were women, compared with 43 per cent. at the end of 1987 and 34 per cent. at the end of 1970. The Lord Chancellor also aims to achieve equality of sittings and he is very near achieving that. The percentage of women on the bench is rising consistently.

Mr. Jones: Is not it true that many working women find it hard to get time off and that many employers are paring back to the point where females who could serve as magistrates cannot entertain the prospect? In many homes in which the male partner is unemployed, the female partner must go out to work. That is certainly the case in Wales. Many people feel that the junior Minister should do more to emphasise the need for female magis trates—and that if he did, he would have far better courts with which to work.

Mr. Taylor: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman challenge me in his customary friendly way. My next magistrates visit will be to Cardiff and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks very much in mind when I am there.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that although more female magistrates and judges would be welcome, provided that they are appointed on merit, he should not be tempted positively to discriminate in favour of women if that is done simply for the sake of appointing more women, when they might not be as well qualified as men? That would be dangerous for the cause of women and for the judiciary.

Mr. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's warning.

Land Registry Offices (Staff)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement of staffing levels at Land Registry offices; and what increase in work he expects in the medium term.

Mr. John M. Taylor: A contracting workload has meant that, since 1989, staffing levels have been reduced by over 2,300 posts, but the registry retains the capacity to respond to recovery in the property market. The registry is planning for a workload increase of 20 per cent. between 1993 and 1998.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I wonder whether he will be able to fit into his busy schedule a visit to Weymouth Land Registry office, where I am sure that he will have a warm welcome from the very efficient staff there. I know that they are very keen to see the Chancellor's Budget tomorrow, which I am sure will increase the number of houses being bought and therefore registered and hence the number of jobs in Weymouth in my constituency.

Mr. Taylor: I am pleased to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. It is my intention to go to Weymouth to see the Land Registry and I hope that for some part of that visit my hon. Friend will be able to join me.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about political development in Hong Kong.
There is widespread support in the House and elsewhere for the proposals put forward by the Governor last October. We sought to respond to the wish of the Hong Kong people for a greater say in their own affairs while staying within the terms of the Sino-British joint declaration, the Basic Law and other relevant exchanges with the Chinese side.
The Governor's proposals represent our judgment of the right way forward for Hong Kong, but we have said from the start that we are open to alternative idea, from the people of Hong Kong or from the Chinese side. We have had a wide range of suggestions from people in Hong Kong. The Chinese side have opposed the proposals without offering anything in their place. Since last October, we and the Governor have been urging the Chinese side to discuss these electoral issues with us in order to reach an understanding. We are ready to enter such discussions without preconditions. We want to see as much continuity as possible in Hong Kong's electoral arrangements before and after 1997.
Some two months ago, we renewed our efforts to get talks under way with China, and since then there have been intensive diplomatic contacts in Peking. It may be useful for the House if I set out briefly the basis on which we were prepared to hold discussions.
First, we accepted that the talks should be on the basis of the joint declaration—which I have mentioned—the principle of convergence with the Basic Law and the relevant understandings and agreements reached between Britain and China. The Governor's proposals are wholly compatible with those.
Second, as I made plain to the House on 10 March, we told the Chinese side that the British team in these discussions would include representatives of the Hong Kong Government on the same basis as other officials taking part in the talks. Hong Kong officials have joined over the past 10 years in discussions with the Chinese side as members of the British team, including during the negotiations on the joint declaration and later as members of the Joint Liaison Group. We cannot and do not accept what some Chinese officials have said in the past few days—that the role of people from Hong Kong in discussions about Hong Kong's future should be downgraded.
We received a positive response on the principle of talks from the Chinese side in early February. To help get the talks started, we and the Governor therefore decided, with the advice of the Executive Council in Hong Kong, to postpone the original plan to publish the draft electoral legislation in Hong Kong's Official Gazette on 12 February. As the diplomatic contacts proceeded, we held up publication for four further weeks; but we told the Chinese that it was not possible to delay indefinitely, given the need to pass legislation before the Legislative Council rose for its summer recess in July.
It is disappointing that, despite all those efforts, the Chinese side were still not able to agree by 12 March to a date for talks—or even to a date on which an announcement of talks could be made. As we had

forewarned them, the Governor therefore published his proposals on that day, 12 March. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Publication in the Official Gazette is only the first step in the legislative process. Introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council would be a separate step. As the Governor has said, we will have to judge, in the light of developments, when to take that step. Thereafter, I am sure that Members of the Legislative Council would want to discuss the draft legislation in great detail, in the light of the various alternatives put forward, before they reached a decision.
Publication of the legislation therefore should not make it more difficult to begin talks with China. The Bill sets out the Governor's proposals, which have been public since October, in legislative form. This does not affect the basis for talks with China, the need for such talks, or our wish to hold them. We have said that if we reached an understanding with the Chinese side we would recommend this to the Legislative Council.
So we remain ready for talks at any time and I hope that the Chinese side will be prepared to settle quickly on arrangements for such talks. We in Britain have responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997, and part of that responsibility is to maintain steady progress towards democracy in Hong Kong. We are open to discussion about how to achieve that, but the key point is that the electoral arrangements in Hong Kong should be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
The Chinese side also have responsibilities and interests as the future sovereign power. Britain and China have every incentive to work together to ensure the future success of Hong Kong. We will continue to the greatest extent possible to pursue steadily the path of co-operation with China, and we look to the Chinese side to do the same.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to make a statement about the circumstances in Hong Kong and on relations between the People's Republic of China and Her Majesty's Government. We had asked for such a statement, and I think that the whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making one. There is much in the statement with which to agree. It is conciliatory in tone and continues to offer open discussions without preconditions to the Government of the People's Republic of China. That, too, is welcome. It safeguards the legitimate interests and the right to make final decisions of the people of Hong Kong themselves whose future is the most important aspect of all in these matters. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all those issues.
However, the central question remains unanswered. Why is it that, in the face of long discussions over many months with the apparent openness and willingness of Her Majesty's Government to meet without preconditions, the talks have broken down? Why is progress not being made? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my meetings with Vice Premier Zhu Rongji and in several discussions with the ambassador of the People's Republic of China in London I have made it clear that we would always support proposals to extend democracy to the people of Hong Kong?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that we urged the representatives of the People's Republic of China to return to the negotiating table with counter proposals, if


they have any? It is regrettable that they have failed either in private discussions or apparently in public to present any counter proposals as a basis for discussions to resolve this deadlock.
The deadlock is serious for a number of reasons. For example, why are the Chinese now apparently objecting—I say "apparently objecting"—to the involvement of representatives of the people of Hong Kong when those representatives have taken part over many years in discussions about the future of Hong Kong? What has caused that apparent change of mind in Beijing? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us and the people of Hong Kong that their legitimate right to be represented in any talks about their future will not be given away but will be safeguarded by Her Majesty's Government and the Governor? For example, what is to happen to the very important economic development of the new airport for Hong Kong? How will those proposals be affected by this continuing breakdown in the talks?
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he will continue, in line with the Governor, to make it clear to the Government of the People's Republic of China that delay cannot be endured indefinitely: that if legislation is to pass through Legco—I say "if legislation is to pass through Legco", because it remains for the members of Legco themselves to decide whether the proposals are acceptable to them, which will be a debate that we shall all watch with interest—that legislation cannot be delayed indefinitely, even though, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, he insists that it is not too late for talks on alternative proposals to develop.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, to the people of Hong Kong and, for that matter, to the Governor that proposals to widen and deepen democracy in Hong Kong have had and retain our complete support, without any equivocation at all, but we want to see a resumption of talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor and the People's Republic of China in the interests, above all, of the future well-being of the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. That is a great help. He questioned me in particular on two points. His first question—why the talks about talks did not succeed—is one which he must address to the Chinese Government. I was reasonably hopeful a week ago, even a shorter time ago, that the different procedural obstacles that had come up were being resolved and that we would be able to start substantial talks. At the end, the difficulty focused on something that I mentioned in my statement. Representatives of the Hong Kong Government have taken part in this kind of discussion often before, without any difficulty. There was a suggestion from the Chinese side that their role and their designation should be, in some way, lessened or degraded. The implications of that are not ones which we could accept. It was really on that point that the talks about talks stalled.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, it is agreed between us and the Chinese and virtually everybody in Hong Kong that Hong Kong needs a new airport if it is to remain a first class international trade and financial centre. We went out of our way last year, as the House will recall, to take account of Chinese problems over the financing of

these arrangements. The result is the memorandum of understanding which the Prime Minister entered into. I believe that agreement could be reached quickly on these airport matters if the financial issues, in which the Chinese have a legitimate interest, were tackled on their merits. We shall seek to do that.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is not the answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about why the Chinese are not responding as, I am sure, we would all hope, that the Governor produced his October proposals, which were supposed to be the basis of negotiation, unilaterally? That is what has caused offence in Beijing. Can my right hon. Friend confirm, lest there be any doubt, that the 1984 agreement remains the basis of our policy towards Hong Kong? In order to find a way in which both sides, or all three sides, can get themselves off the hook, would it not at least be worth while contemplating the proposition that an independent panel of lawyers should look at the simple, central question whether the Governor's proposals, made unilaterally last October, did or did not break both the 1984 agreement and, more importantly, the 1990 and 1991 discussions?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure what my hon. Friend meant when he said that the Governor put forward unilateral proposals. As Governor, it is his duty—a duty that he does not share with anyone else at present—to put forward proposals for the conduct of the legislative elections in Hong Kong in 1995.
On 25 September, some time before the Governor published his proposals, I gave the Chinese Foreign Minister the text of what the Governor proposed to say. At all times, before and after the Governor announced his proposals, he, I and everyone made it clear that they were proposals and that we were perfectly ready to discuss them with the Chinese, just as they are open for discussion in Hong Kong.
As for my hon. Friend's suggestion, it is of course the Chinese who have most strongly opposed any internationalisation of the discussion on these issues. On the legal points, the documents are in the Library and hon. Members can make their own decisions and conclusions, but we are perfectly clear that we are justified in saying, as I did, that the Governor's proposals are entirely compatible with the joint declaration—I confirm that that remains the basis of our policy—and that they are compatible with the Basic Law and with understandings reached in the context of the last Legislative Council elections. We are confident about that, but the talks that we seek should concentrate on the arrangements for the future, and I hope that they can be arranged on that basis.

Sir David Steel: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Chinese Premier's statement this morning that the Government's proposals appear to be designed to create disorder—if that is the correct translation—in the colony are viewed with total astonishment by members of all parties as it is perfectly obvious that the interest of Britain, as well as that of China and the people of Hong Kong, is to secure a smooth transition in 1997? Will he reaffirm that the Government of China still have some way to go to regain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, which it lost in the events of two or three years ago?
If China is so convinced that the Governor's proposals in some way as yet unexplained transgress the joint declaration or the Basic Law, will he not rule out the possibility of asking whether it would agree to refer the matter for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice?

Mr. Hurd: I think that I have already answered the latter point. It is important to have sensible arrangements for the future which meet the criteria set out in my statement but which could be continued after 1997 in what is called the through-train. That should be the objective, but it has not yet been possible to reach it.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Chinese Prime Minister's statement this morning, it follows the line that has been taken before. There is nothing especially dramatic or unexpected in it, but it represents the continuation of a stalemate on a matter which it is in the practical interests of Britain, China and Hong Kong for the stalemate to be broken. That is the essence of the matter, and I hope that after gazetting, as before gazetting, it will be possible to start, continue and succeed in a dialogue that reflects those real interests.

Sir Cranley Onslow: As my right hon. Friend has confirmed, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) suggested, that he gave the Chinese Government advance notice of the Governor's proposals in good time, and as he emphasised the fact that they were consistent with the Basic Law and the joint declaration, will he say whether the Chinese have given any indication of why they appear to want to seek confrontation?

Mr. Hurd: No; the Chinese have not given us any alternatives to the Governor's proposals. They said for a long time that they were not prepared to discuss the matter until the proposals were withdrawn. Recently that has not been their position. That is one reason why, as I told the House a few minutes ago, I was reasonably hopeful until quite recently about managing to get into talks. In the end, for the reasons I have given, that was not possible. My right hon. Friend is right. During the almost six months in which the Chinese Government have had the Governor's proposals, we have had no alternatives to the proposals from the Chinese side.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is not this deplorable situation the direct consequence of the Government's spinelessness on the whole issue of democracy in Hong Kong? Is not it a fact that the consensus from the Office of the Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils should have been confirmed by the Government long ago? Is not it a fact that the Patten proposals, inadequate and belated though they certainly are, are the minimum that should now be introduced? The Foreign Secretary is now saying that these inadequate and belated proposals, only four years before China takes over in Hong Kong, can be subject to further whittling away and further reduction. What kind of democracy will be handed over to the Chinese in 1997 if the Government do a Munich on Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is back in his old form. I do not think that he recognises the realities of the situation any more than he did when he was a Front-Bench spokesman. Most right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman in calmer moments, know that

the political demand for democracy in Hong Kong is of reasonably recent date. It is now strong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh come on!"] That is true. When I first knew Hong Kong many years ago, it would have been hard for anybody to say that there was a demand in Hong Kong for political democracy. It simply was not so. Recent events, which I need not specify, have created that demand out of anxiety. It is now a real demand. It is no longer possible to treat or to handle Hong Kong as if it were simply a commercial city. The political demand is there and the political community is now there. The Governor, the British Government and the Chinese Government must take account of that reality.
We can argue, as the right hon. Gentleman and I did at the time, about the OMELCO consensus, although I do not agree with his conclusion. The conclusion we reached last time was about right and worked. I always said that we would go back to the Chinese to see whether we could improve on it. I was thinking of an increase in the number of directly elected seats. What the Governor has done is not that. He has sought to improve democracy by other means compatible with the Basic Law. The Governor has made a shrewd set of proposals.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the principle of more democracy in Hong Kong is not really at issue? That principle was accepted long ago by the Chinese in the 1984 accord and is enshrined in the basic agreement, in which the Chinese also talked about the need for a high degree of local autonomy. All that the Governor and my right hon. Friend are trying to do now is to bring forward proposals to make a reality of those earlier demands, agreed to by the Chinese, that there should be a high degree of autonomy.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is entirely right that we should persist with these modest proposals to make a reality of points to which the Chinese have already agreed? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the whole of Asia, including Hong Kong, is now in transition and that there is quite a degree of transition in Beijing as well? It may well be right to persist with our line and not to abandon ourselves to passing pressures.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is right. The phrase "two systems in one country" is not a British phrase. It is a Chinese phrase to embody the principles of the 1984 joint declaration. That is right. The principle of two systems in one country after 1997 is the only practical principle under which Hong Kong can be successful after the change of sovereignty. It is, therefore, in the practical interests of Britain, of China and of Hong Kong that that principle should be turned into reality. The Governor's proposals are one way in which to do that.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, apart from the usual gyrations in the stock exchange casinos, trade and business in Hong Kong with China are proceeding perfectly normally? Will he also confirm that nothing in the constitutional proposals and in the democratic principles underlying them undermines the continued prosperity and expansion of the Hong Kong economy? Will he consider taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer out there for a much-needed holiday to see what an expanding economy really looks like?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that one has to be Chancellor of the Exchequer to derive a certain amount of inspiration from a visit to Hong Kong. It is a remarkably successful economy, precisely because of that combination of British administration and Chinese entrepreneurship. British administration will be replaced in 1997, but it is most important that the other quality—Chinese entrepreneurship—should continue under free institutions.
I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's first point. Opportunities for trade with China are substantial and have been continuing. I hope that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the current Chinese attitude suggests a certain amount of bad faith on the part of the Chinese? As my right hon. Friend said, they agreed to the principle of two systems, one country, and the second system—democracy—will not be properly developed even under the Governor's proposals.

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to trade accusations of bad faith because co-operation with China between now and 1997 is very much in the interests of the people of Hong Kong, who are our main responsibility and our main interest in this matter. I do not want to engage in that kind of recrimination. It is crucial that the principle, which is a Chinese principle, should be respected. The Governor's proposals are very much in line with that principle and with the joint declaration and are compatible with the Basic Law and with the understandings reached before the last legislative elections.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that lack of democracy in Hong Kong has always been a problem, and that that has not been put right by the Basic Law or by any other accords with the People's Republic of China? Will he now tell us what guarantees he can offer of freedom of speech in Hong Kong and of political asylum for those who have been critical of the People's Republic of China and who may be subject to prison sentences as and when China takes over?

Mr. Hurđ: Many of these matters are discussed in the Joint Liaison Group with the Chinese—for example, the question of the convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman was present when we discussed the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, which the House agreed and whose provisions have worked well.

Mr. James Couchman: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, these are days of change in Beijing. The Vice-President of China died over the weekend, and there are likely to be changes of personnel during the present congress in the People's Republic of China. Will my right hon. Friend undertake, in conjunction with the Governor, not to allow the legislative process for putting the Governor's proposals into law to progress too far before those changes become apparent so that any discussions with the People's Republic take place after such changes have occurred?

Mr. Hurd: It would be a little rash to base policy on possible changes in Peking in the next few weeks and months. It is hard to put that on any sure foundation. The Legislative Council in Hong Kong needs to take decisions on the legislation fairly soon—before the end of July, when the Council rises for its recess. That allows plenty of time

both for discussion in the Legislative Council and for discussion with the Chinese—if, as I hope, they are ready to undertake such discussion.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Foreign Secretary point out to the Chinese Government in a delicate way that the increased expectations for democracy in Hong Kong have been in part caused by the Chinese Government's own statements? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, after the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Peking in 1989, it reported that the Chinese Government had said that they had no objection to faster progress towards democracy and that the introduction of representative government was a matter for Hong Kong. In its report, written after the Tiananmen square incident, the Committee reported unanimously to the House that we believed that full democracy must be introduced before 1997. That was on the basis of advice that we were given by the Chinese Government in Peking. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would remind them of that.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; and I recall that report. It is in the interests of China, and is possible for China without sacrificing anything that it regards as essential, to have somewhat more confidence in the process of democracy in Hong Kong. The Chinese are committed to that in the Basic Law, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. What is needed is a little more confidence in that commitment.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is there not already a very large, enthusiastic and well-educated younger generation in Hong Kong who have every right to take part in the full democratic processes and democratic institutions of their society? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Patten's proposals are sensible, cautious and, in my view, the minimum required for democracy? Therefore, they deserve support and not sniping, especially sniping from the powerful business interests in Hong Kong itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to those interests that he and the House support the process of democracy that has been proposed?

Mr. Hurd: We certainly do that, and almost the whole House has given its support since the proposals were published. Certainly the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has given that support. There is now a political city alongside a commercial city in Hong Kong. Both are now part of the reality. That is one reason why, in Hong Kong itself, the Governor's proposals have continued, despite sniping from inside and outside the colony, to receive very strong support.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it not have been far more difficult for the Chinese to adopt their present attitude if the reforms in Hong Kong had been implemented much earlier, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? Is it not ironic that the obstruction is coming from a Government who have never been genuinely elected by anyone and who, in 1989, were responsible for massacres of students whose only demand was for elementary democratic reform in China itself?

Mr. Hurd: The Government and the House have expressed themselves in respect of what happened in


Tiananmen square. One can argue about the right pace of progress towards democracy in Hong Kong. The pace which we, the former Governor and the present Governor have set in hand is about right. The principle is endorsed by the Chinese Government themselves. We are asking them to discuss with us the way in which that principle, which they accept, is put into practice between now and 1997 so that in 1997 the arrangements in place should continue.

Mr. Roger Sims: As one who has known Hong Kong for 30 years, may I endorse the view of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the pressure for democratic reform in Hong Kong is relatively recent but is now quite strong? Is he aware that the position that he and the Governor have taken on this matter has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that the people of Hong Kong are entitled to be represented in any talks that take place and who find it wholly unreasonable that the People's Republic of China should object to talks simply because it cannot dictate who should represent the British side?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those are exactly the points. I hope that those of us who share those points can, during the next few weeks which may in some respects be difficult, hold to those points and make them clear to Chinese friends with whom we speak and to people in Hong Kong. It is very important that there should be the minimum of misunderstanding and confusion in Hong Kong or Peking about the part of this country and this House. I hope that today's exchanges will make that clear.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: What does the Foreign Secretary make of the Chinese Government's insistence that Governor Patten's proposals are in direct conflict with the Basic Law?

Mr. Hurd: The Governor's proposals are designed to take account of two points of view which the Chinese Government have put to me and to many others with great emphasis. First, they were not prepared to see an increase in the number of directly elected seats beyond 20 as provided for in the Basic Law. The Governor's proposals respect that. Secondly, the Legislative Council should not be changed in nature, and the Governor's proposals respect that. We therefore took into account both the main points that the Chinese had quite legitimately impressed on us as their view. The Governor found a way, while respecting those points, modestly but clearly of advancing democracy. The Chinese should accept the effort that has been made as a basis for discussion—as something that should be discussed. That is what we have proposed, but so far they have not accepted it.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals for democracy in Hong Kong up to the year 1997 are in the interests of China because they would underpin inward investment? Will he pass on to the Governor the good wishes of all hon. Members, irrespective of which party they belong to, who are very concerned about the future of the people in Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Governor has a difficult position. In some ways, it is bound

to be a difficult position and, in the present circumstances, more difficult than usual. He will be very grateful for what has been said in the House, and in particular for my hon. Friend's personal good wishes.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Were not Baroness Thatcher's Government taken for a ride when they signed the joint declaration? Are not the Government being naive in thinking that the perpetrators of what happened in Tiananmen square will support democracy in Hong Kong any more than they did in Beijing? As the joint declaration was underwritten by the United Nations, at what point might the Foreign Secretary consider taking the matter back to the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may be mistaken. The best agreements are those that rest on self-interest, and it is in the self-interest of China that it should take over in 1997 and be able to sustain a promising, prosperous city. That depends, in turn, on keeping alive in Hong Kong the entrepreneurial spirit, which rests on a degree of freedom of speech and on the growing institutions of democracy. This is not something theoretical for China: properly considered, it is in its self-interest. We will do what we can—I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's tactic would be the right one—to bring that point home as often as we can.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many hon. Members in all parts of the House have noticed the contrast between the reasonable tones that are being adopted by himself and his fellow Ministers and those of the Chinese Government, and in particular of its ambassador in London? Such hectoring comments hardly help to achieve the settlement that we all desire.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential, at this sensitive time in the history of Hong Kong, that the people of Hong Kong are properly represented in the talks and that deals are not done behind their backs because it is their future that we are talking about?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. On his first point, I would not like to point a finger at any individual, but the tactic of attempting to hector or dissuade by argument British individuals or firms from taking a particular line misfires, and I hope that, if it has been practised, it will be discontinued.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that there is a growing coincidence of view between some very rich and powerful business men in Hong Kong and the Chinese communist party on having capitalism but not democracy against which the opposition in Hong Kong seems to be most effectively orchestrated? Is not it time that we said, loudly and clearly, that that coincidence of views is not shared by the British people?

Mr. Hurd: I am impressed by the degree of support which the Governor's proposals have continued to hold in most parts of Hong Kong. That is because sensible, shrewd people in Hong Kong, in the business community and elsewhere, realise that Hong Kong is now a political community as well as a business community—both have to be taken into account.

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and I agree that these moderate proposals are such that we hope that the Chinese


authorities will come to the table further to discuss them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that two other elements are part and parcel of bringing those authorities to the table? One is the attitude of Taiwan to their behaviour over the proposals; the second is the attitude of the United States Government to the special trading relationship with China. Will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail what he thinks of those two attitudes?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think I want to comment on the Taiwan dimension. Hong Kong is increasingly, as my hon. Friend knows, the funnel through which China's trade passes to the west, to the great benefit of both Hong Kong and China, so it is certainly in the interests of Hong Kong that the most-favoured-nation arrangements should be renewed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary admit that it is a bit late in the day to come here with all this diplomatic waffle, given that the decision was made in 1984 by the Tory Government of which he was a member? Why did they not deal with the fine print then instead of allowing matters to reach this stage, when China is holding every ace?
There would perhaps be a little more credibility in the opt-out clause that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about were it not for the fact that those in China may ask who this Tory Government are to be talking about democracy when they do not allow a referendum in Britain.

Mr. Hurd: I think that I have already answered the points in the hon. Gentleman's question——

Mr. Skinner: Not that one.

Mr. Hurd: —those parts of the question that are relevant.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Chinese that this House has never urged an increase in democracy in Hong Kong in an irresponsible way? Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report specifically rejected the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). What the House wants is a sensible, structured approach both to democracy and to judicial matters which will enable this country to maintain its other commitment in the joint declaration—to economic and social stability in Hong Kong. It is therefore in China's interest and in the interests of the people of Hong Kong that we proceed as the Governor has suggested.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. The more people can impress that point in the sort of terms that he has used, the better.

Mr. Mike Gapes: What plans does the Foreign Secretary have to deal with what seems to be the continuing Chinese intransigence over and opposition to democracy? What steps will he take to get the support of the European Community, the United Nations and other international bodies for democratic change and stability in Hong Kong? Contrary to the weasel words of some Conservative Members, will he make it absolutely clear

that there is no question of going back on democracy or on the moves towards it, both for Hong Kong and, in the long term, for China itself?

Mr. Hurd: The views of the House on this matter are fairly clear. It is the responsibility of the British Government, between now and 30 June 1997, to take whatever decisions for the administration of Hong Kong we think are in the interests of Hong Kong. That is laid down in the joint declaration and agreement of 1984, and that agreement we will discharge. We want to do that, to the greatest feasible extent, in co-operation with China—for the reasons that I have stated—but the responsibility until that time is ours.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in China's interests that the traditional economy and character of Hong Kong be maintained? Does he also agree that if China breaks her word to Hong Kong the whole world will not trust China, and the inward investment for which she yearns will not take place?

Mr. Hurd: There are many considerations in the mind of the Chinese Government. I do not think that we need to make those points to them. They can see the world; they know what is being said and done; they know the realities. I hope that the principal reality will gradually be borne in on them—that it is in their interests, as well as forming part of their commitments, that Hong Kong should make steady progress towards fuller democracy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The House will accept the laudable objectives that the Government have set with regard to the future organisation of Hong Kong and its relationship with China. Is not the Foreign Secretary sensitive to the Chinese leadership's criticism that Mr. Patten might have gone about those matters in a different way in the autumn of last year? Could he not have been more sensitive in the discussions, and perhaps not have held them in such an open forum—that is to say, in the international press? If he had adopted such a process, might we not have been in a far healthier position in terms of the potential for discussions to resolve the present difficulties?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know how the hon. Member can sustain that. No journalists were present when I gave the plans to the Chinese Foreign Minister on 25 November last year, and I made no statement. I made no effort to score points. I gave the plans to the Chinese in confidence so that they had an opportunity to comment in the weeks that followed, before the Governor announced the proposals. They refused to take that opportunity. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect that the Governor should hold up publication of the proposals in October or their gazetting on 12 March this year indefinitely or until the Chinese agreed. Those are not reasonable proposals for the House or for Hong Kong.
Before publication of the proposals, we gave the Chinese an opportunity, and we offered them another between publication last October and gazetting in March. Neither of those opportunities was taken. A third opportunity exists now, when the proposals are gazetted. But the Legislative Council has not started discussions, let alone taken any decisions. We are not pillorying anyone.
I have deliberately chosen my words very carefully. We want to enter into discussions, and I hope that the opportunity can now be taken.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on an important matter for the House. It is certainly a proper point of order, and I shall be brief.
At the weekend the Scottish National party national executive met and passed a vote of confidence in the three Scottish Nationalist Members of Parliament, who are popularly known in Scotland as the "Wee Three". They had to vote for themselves, otherwise the motion of confidence would have been lost. What is really worrying is that three members of the cabinet have resigned over the matter—that is, the cabinet of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). You may not be aware that he has a cabinet, Madam Speaker. The national executive has said that it will seek the development of emergency procedures for "greater consultation" between Members of Parliament and the national executive. Clearly it is intent on influencing, confining and coercing three Members of this House.
"Erskine May", chapter 5, states on page 69, among other things, that
the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members.
I believe that the national executive of the SNP is in breach of privilege, and that that is a matter on which I should write to you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that, according to our procedures, as that matter concerns other hon. Members, he should have informed them of his concern.

Mr. Hogg: You know me very well, Madam Speaker. You can be assured that I wrote to the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party——

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not seeking to enter into a debate; I made a comment. I take it that the hon. Member has advised the hon. Members concerned. I remind him——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished; I am on my feet.
As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said, it may well be a matter of contempt or privilege, and that being the case the hon. Gentleman should write to me about it.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose——

Madam Speaker: That is the end of the matter. There can be no further points of order on it. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall take it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, Opposition parties get what is colloquially known as Short money. There is a point here that applies to the House as a whole, and in which you are bound to have an interest. Now that this debacle has taken place in the Scottish National party, who will receive the money? We are talking about taxpayers' money. Who will it be handed over to—the executive body or the leader of the SNP?

Madam Speaker: I put the hon. Gentleman on his honour when I asked whether his point of order related to the former point of order. I should have known better.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I put the hon. Gentleman on his honour. He must not usurp the time of the House to ask about a matter that I have already dealt with. He may proceed if it is on a totally different matter.

Mr. Corbyn: It could not be a more different point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you read the newspapers at the weekend, as many of us did, and saw the disturbing reports that the Prime Minister managed to raise £17 million for the Conservative party by holding private dinners at 10 Downing street. By what means can we question the Prime Minister about his use of Downing street as a fund-raising agency for the Conservative party and about what undertakings were given in return for the secret donations made to the Tory party election machine so that we may know how Government policy has been influenced?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman assumes quite a lot. I have much more to do at the weekends than read the national press. The hon. Gentleman should not expect answers on procedural matters of that nature to be given by the Chair across the Floor of the House. We must now move on.

Orders of the Day — Disability (Grants) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill for the House to consider, but it is an important one for severely disabled people. Before I deal with the contents of the Bill and the independent living fund in detail, I should like to place the concept of independent living within the wider context of care in the community. As we all know, policy on care in the community developed as a concept in the 1980s. Against the background, the aim was that, wherever feasible and sensible, people should be assisted to live as independently as possible in the community.
The final phase in the implementation of that concept will take place in April, when social security funds—that is to say, income support—hitherto used to pay independent sector home fees will be transferred to local authorities to enable them to purchase care from a range of providers, according to the needs that have been assessed for each individual. The future of the independent living fund, with which the Bill deals, has to be set in that context. The background against which ILF has hitherto been operating will be changed from April and I shall say something about that later.
The Bill fully meets our manifesto commitment to continue to support people with severe disabilities and consolidates the excellent work that the independent living fund has done over the past five years. It is the next step in the development of support to enable disabled people to live independently in the community.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What would be the position of somebody who was so severely disabled that he could not remain at home, even with the assistance of the council and the fund, admittedly at the large amount of £500? Would such a person have to go into a home?

Mr. Scott: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is talking about the present situation or about what will happen after the Bill has become law and the new funds have been set up. I shall explain in detail how the new arrangements will work for people who need support from both a local authority and the independent living fund and who have exceptionally high costs.
As we all recall, the ILF was announced as an interim measure in 1988, pending the introduction of the community care arrangements along the lines that were recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths. Those arrangements are now in place and will be implemented from 1 April, but as the ILF has been so successful the Government have decided to continue support for the main concepts behind it, which are giving cash to disabled people and recognising that by doing so we give them independence and the power to determine how best to meet their own care needs. I believe that that is right and fitting. It is sensible that this should be carried forward into the new arrangements, where the fund will operate in partnership with local authorities, which will no longer be merely


providers of services but facilitators of a wide variety of care provisions. I hope that that will become increasingly true of the role of local authorities in the future.
I suspect that our debate will be mainly about the ILF. The House will have noted, however, that we have also taken the opportunity in the Bill to put the funding for notability on a new statutory basis. I shall return to that towards the end of my remarks.
So we embark on the establishment of two new funds. Before I go any further, I wish to place on record my warmest thanks to the trustees and staff of the existing ILF. I am sure that during the Bill's passage, and especially today on Second Reading, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to take the opportunity to place on record their gratitude to all those associated with the fund. I know, because of my close contact with them over the years since the fund came into existence, that their work has not always been easy. They have had to develop a new way of working with disabled people under the sometimes critical eyes of the disability lobby and various arms of government. The trustees, under the chairmanship first of Winifred Tumim and then of Trevan Hingston, faced many difficult decisions over the five-year life of the trust.

Mr. Frank Field: I am sure that we all want to underline what the Minister has said about thanking the trustees for the work that they have done. As he is complimenting them on the way in which they developed the task that was presented to them by the Government, will he say whether they were all happy about being wound up?

Mr. Scott: I think that the trustees understood that the ILF was, as constituted, an interim measure to see us through the gap before the introduction of care in the community in April this year. I shall come on to that——

Mr. Field: rose—

Mr. Scott: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he might wish to listen to the next few sentences of my speech.

Mr. Field: I shall listen to what the Minister has to say, but I ask him now whether he is not rewriting history. When the fund was established, it had nothing to do with a measure to fill the gap between what then existed and of community care. It was introduced because the Government had introduced income support, under which those who were very disabled would have received less money than previously. They introduced the ILF to ensure that those people were not worse off and we congratulated them on that. The fund developed into a success which the Government did not believe possible. It is rather sad that we are mourning the loss of the ILF while welcoming a rather smaller initiative to follow in its wake.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited to hear what I was about to say about the proper transition from supplementary benefit through to income support, as a result of which we thought it necessary to fill the gap between that change and the move to care in the community, which was already in preparation. It is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) might like to undermine the tribute that I have been paying to the trustees—well, I know he would not. I shall move on to the

new arrangements that are being made. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a proper intervention in due course I shall be only too happy to gve way to him, as he well knows.
I pay tribute to the two chairmen, Winifred Tumim and Trevan Hingston, who faced many difficult decisions over the lifetime of the trust. No decision was more difficult than that of winding up the trust and bringing about its closure in November 1992—that is to say, its closure to new applications at that juncture.
It has been quite clear for a long time that to make proper provision for the ILF to hand over its caseload to the two new funds that will come into force on 1 April 1993 there would have to come a time when the ILF could not accept new applications. I well understand—it has been impressed on me by a number of the trustees—that there has been some misunderstanding about the discretion of the trustees in whether the fund could have stayed open in the particular circumstances of the delays in dealing with disability living allowance cases. Some people have had to wait several months to have their DLA claims processed.
It has been said, and technically it is correct, that trustees of charitable funds have discretion. However, I have always recognised that the need for an orderly handover prevented the trustees from being able to exercise their discretion in those circumstances. I want to make plain my regrets and apologies if any of the trustees feel that the excellent work that they have done for disabled people over the five-year life of the fund was in any way undermined by that misunderstanding.
Having paid tribute to the two chairmen of the ILF trustees, I want now to pay a particular tribute to the director of the fund, Judith Hoyle. She is on secondment from the Department of Social Security and has been with the fund since its inception five years ago. She has played a major part in its success. Through her, I also pay tribute to all the staff who have worked so conscientiously to ensure the fund's success. I am aware of their immense contribution to its work. With them, I bracket the social workers who have visited the potential beneficiaries of the fund and done great work in assessing their needs and making provision for them.

Ms Liz Lynne: The Minister said that he is grateful to the trustees. Will they be able to continue with the successor bodies? If not, is not it strange that he is saying how great they are when, in effect, they are virtually being sacked?

Mr. Scott: I understand the hon. Lady's point. In essence, the two new funds—the independent living (extension) fund and the independent living (1993) fund—will have a wholly different role from that of the ILF over the past five years. The ILF made total provision, on a charitable basis, for a trust where direct application was, in effect, made to the trustees. In the new circumstances——

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No, not in the middle of a reply to another intervention. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
The main thrust of new cases being provided for by the 1993 fund will come to the trustees after an application has been made to a local authority and the local authority has


begun an assessment of the needs of the disabled person. Then, the 1993 fund will have the job of deciding whether to top up the help that is already being given by the local authority. The work of the new bodies, whether the one that provides for new cases or the one that manages the existing caseload and decides whether cases need to be reviewed because of extra need, will be wholly different from the work of the existing fund.

Mr. Wicks: I apologise to the Minister for having tried to intervene at the wrong time. I am interested in what he has said about there being a wholly new role for the new funds. If that is so, why call them by the same name as the existing fund? Is not that confusing?

Mr. Scott: No—[Laughter.] This is obviously a matter of great humour for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who have little enough to laugh at these days.
It is important to recognise that, although the two new funds have a wholly different role, disabled people whose needs have previously been met by the ILF may feel that the use of the same name gives a sense of continuity. I deliberately decided to incorporate the title of the old fund into the new funds, but with the caveat that one fund deals with new applications and the other deals with the existing caseload.
I acknowledge the important role and contribution of the Disablement Income Group and DIG (Scotland) in launching the fund five years ago. The ILF was established jointly by DIG and the Department and, without the group's support, it would have been difficult to launch the fund in the first instance.
It may be hard to recall what a courageous step that was for the Disablement Income Group at a time when many disability organisations wanted nothing to do with a discretionary fund but wanted a statutory, regulated system continued. To those critical of that decision I would only say—addressing my remarks to DIG and with apologies to Sir Christopher Wren—that if one wants to see the monument to that courageous decision by DIG, one need only look at the lives of the 21,000 people now receiving help from the fund.

Mr. Frank Field: I, too, congratulate DIG on being courageous enough to put its head above the parapet when everyone else, lacking in courage, kept their heads firmly below it—and were most unpleasant to DIG in the process. Is DIG happy with the fund's winding up?

Mr. Scott: I cannot speak for DIG, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has access to its views. I had an extremely pleasant meeting with the ILF's outgoing trustees. Many of them perhaps felt some disappointment at not being able to contribute to the work, but they all took great pride in their achievements over the fund's lifetime.
Although it may be invidious to mention individual trustees, we owe a particular debt to Peter Large and Pauline Thompson of the DIG. If I may mention two more names without in any way diminishing my respect and praise for others, Jack McGregor of DIG (Scotland) and Eilis Gallacher from County Derry played a major part in ensuring that the needs of Scotland and Northern Ireland were fully met through the fund's operation. I pay particular tribute to them.

Mr. Keith Bradley: As the Minister if praising DIG so lavishly, and rightly, may I ask whether any DIG representative will be among the five trustees who have yet to be appointed by the Government?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman must control his impatience until he sees the names—but I do not anticipate that DIG will be represented on the new body of trustees. The hon. Gentleman should await the outcome, because final decisions have to be made on the new trust fund's composition.
I will recap—as this was mentioned in an intervention—on why the ILF was first introduced in 1988, at the time that we reformed the supplementary benefit system and introduced income support. Although I was engaged elsewhere during much of the lifetime of the supplementary benefit scheme, we can all, as constituency Members of Parliament, remember many of its complexities. A number of the weekly additions rules were not well targeted and were too complex for many customers to understand.
Local authorities long had responsibility for providing care, but the arrangements made for the disabled had precious little flexibility. The traditional response to the most severely disabled in particular was the offer of a place in a residential or nursing home. Between the abolition of the supplementary benefit additions and the introduction of community care, the ILF was introduced to bridge the gap.
The fund's purpose was to allow those severely disabled people who did not want to go into residential care but who needed substantial levels of care and domiciliary support to remain in their own homes.

Mr. Barry Jones: As to the Minister's decision to exclude those over working age, I must inform him of the great disappointment of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which feels that an element of discrimination is at work—bearing in mind that older people suffer dementia and that those who look after them suffer physical and financial hardship. Will the Minister reconsider that decision? It has been badly received in my constituency and has caused great anguish nationally.

Mr. Scott: I entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but let me make two more points. He will acknowledge, I hope, that any scheme of this sort must be introduced within the available resources. Substantial extra resources are being provided for independent living as a result of this legislation and I forecast even more expenditure over the years to come.
We must determine the priorities. I thought it right, and the Government feel it right, that the available resources should be concentrated in particular on those who have become disabled earlier in life. They are likely to have substantially higher care costs than older people and they will not have been able to build up savings or acquire pension rights which are frequently available to such people. As was shown by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report examining the difference in income levels between younger disabled people and able-bodied young people, and between older disabled people and older people who are not disabled, the gap is greater at the younger level than at the older. I therefore think it right to concentrate help on the younger disabled and I am prepared to defend that decision. I understand


the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has expressed., but, within the resources available, I believe that it is right to concentrate them in the way that I have suggested.
The ILF had a small beginning, spending only £1 million of the £5 million provided in its first year of existence—1988–89—but since then it has grown to be a respected organisation in the disability world, currently administering a budget of nearly £100 million and making payments to some 21,000 people. One reason for the growth in the caseload is that the fund was more effective in delivering help to where it is really needed than the system that it replaced. It should be borne in mind that that system gave regulated, statutory help with the costs of domestic assistance. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will recall that there were never more than 6,000 people receiving those supplementary benefit additions and that average individual payments amounted to less than £30 a week. Today, we have some 21,000 cases on the ILF with payments averaging about £114 a week.
I believe that, in a flexible and individually tailored way, the ILF has been a considerable success throughout its lifetime. We all know that by far the most popular aspect of the ILF is the flexibility and freedom of choice that cash payments bring. Dignity and independence are as important to disabled people as they are to everyone else in society. Disabled people have come to value the ability to select and employ their own carers. The new 1993 fund will ensure that disabled people continue to maintain that dignity and independence in two ways. First, it will ensure that the package of care put together for their needs involves a partnership between the disabled person, the professionals from the local authority and the ILF; secondly, it will continue to provide at least an element of cash payments to support the services provided by local authorities.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Unless the deed says so, I do not see any procedure in anything that the Minister has said to enable the people whom the Bill is supposed to serve to have an adverse decision reviewed, either by the local authority or the trustees of the fund. If there is no process of review or appeal, would decisions of that kind be subject to judiciable statements in the courts by way of judicial review?

Mr. Scott: I suppose that almost anything may be subject to judicial review nowadays, but, in essence, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If someone is dissatisfied with a judgment made about the fund's role in topping up local authority care, the trustees will be able to ask for their case to be reviewed, and, if necessary, two or more trustees will be able to look individually at the provision that has been made. Clearly, in a partnership between local authorities and trustees, there will be some constraints in regard to the exercise of that judgment, but there is nothing to say that, if the trustees feel that a mistake has been made about the assessment of their need in excess of the fund, the position cannot be re-examined—as long as the amount does not exceed the maximum.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Obviously, this is a matter of some concern. The fund is to provide a top-up payment, which may often be quite modest. The majority of help will come in the local authority package. The Minister has talked rather generally about the arrangements being a partnership, and of course we all

hope that individuals will be consulted; but will the right hon. Gentleman say a little about the rights of the individual in cases of disagreement between local authority and recipient? If the local authority wishes to make a financial payment, as distinct from providing services, can it do that?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is currently no provision for local authorities to provide cash. They can provide services. Whatever may happen in the future, at a time when local authorities are taking on so many extra responsibilities in relation to community care, it is surely a mistake to add to those responsibilities a duty to manage cash. I do not know what the future may hold, but at present authorities have no power to provide cash.
What authorities have, however—under the terms of the introduction of community care—is a responsibility to consult and involve disabled people in the decision-making process about the package of care with which they will be provided. If that exceeds the £200 limit that the authority must provide in terms of services, a social worker from the ILF will become involved in discussions with local authority social workers to decide what extra cash payment may be necessary in the circumstances. Anyone who is dissatisfied at that point can return to the fund's trustees and ask for the matter to be reconsidered—as, indeed, the local authority can be asked at any time to assess whether the package of services should be re-examined. Circumstances may have changed, or it may be felt that the assessment has gone wrong.
Of course, the introduction of community care has taken us into new territory. No doubt we shall have to monitor carefully how it all works in practice and, in particular, the workings of the partnership between local authorities and the new 1993 ILF.

Mr. Dewar: I believe that there are guidelines on the pricing of the local authority contribution, but how exactly will it work in practice? Presumably, the local authority is the only arbiter when £200 worth of services have been offered. After that it will be up to the ILF, but I assume that there will be some disagreement between the fund and the local authority—and, possibly, the recipient—about precisely how the services should be priced and costed.

Mr. Scott: As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I do not suggest for a moment that there will not be a certain amount of constructive discussion about such matters as the system is launched.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is due to start in a fortnight.

Mr. Scott: Applications are already being made to local authorities and they, in a sense, will be the gateway to the cash that the 1993 fund may be able to provide for disabled people. I believe that authorities are approaching the provision of community care positively. I also believe that the trustees of the new fund will approach their role positively. I am not saying that there will not be the odd hiccup, but I, too, have adopted a positive attitude to the partnership that is evolving. I believe that it will meet the needs of disabled people.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire knows how much I respect him and I know that it is the Opposition's job to be critical of anything that Governments do. I do not ask him exactly to rejoice in the current developments, but I ask him at least to be pleased


that it is possible to continue providing cash for the most severely disabled people in our society, when that has proved so important to them.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister of State is provoking me. He is, of course, dealing with difficult and complex questions. What concerns me is that we have only about a fortnight before the procedure comes into operation. We do not know the names of the trustees and we have not seen the guidelines, the regulations or the statutory instruments, but the Minister expects everything to be sorted out in the wash. The matter is too important to be left to the vagaries of such a timetable.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman may not have caught up with everything that has happened. The staff of the ILF is already preparing for the new fund, two new trustees are in place and operating the system, and others will be appointed in the near future.[Interruption.] All seven trustees will be appointed before the fund comes into existence. They will be in place in the next two weeks. The staff members of the independent living fund are already in discussion with local authorities.
As we launch the new arrangements, the first job is for local authorities to receive applications from the most severely disabled people and from disabled people generally within their curtilage. The authorities will then assess their needs. First, they will assess needs against the level of services that are likely to be needed. Where they feel that the £200 limit will be exceeded they will want to have discussions with the staff and trustees of the independent living (1993) fund. There is nothing very complicated about that, although the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may feel that there is. Apart from the odd hiccup, the system will operate sensibly and sensitively.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Minister does not seem to understand the point. We have been entirely helpful. Given the background of chaos and the problems caused to many people over the DLA, we are trying to help the Minister to avoid another administrative cock-up that will damage his reputation and that of the Government. The people connected to the present independent living fund are extremely concerned that they were not consulted about the new body although they have a wealth of experience. The team for a system that will be operating in two weeks has not been set up. We are genuinely concerned for the recipients and for the Minister's reputation.

Mr. Scott: Before I spoke I was tempted to take a bet on how long it would be before the hon. Gentleman mentioned the disability living allowance. The problems of the DLA were the problems of success. I do not think that there will be problems with the independent living fund. The gate-keepers in the operation of the new ILF will be the local authorities. Sensible discussions are already taking place between local authorities and ILF staff about how matters will be handled.
Local authorities are now in the driving seat for community care for disabled and severely disabled people. They will be the facilitators of care whether it is provided at home or in a residential setting. That is why the time has come to make some changes in the concept of the

independent living fund and how it will operate in the future. The aim is to extend the good work of designing and providing packages of care, which may well turn out to be a mix of services and cash for the most severely disabled people.

Mr. Frank Field: The House should not be fooled too much by the Minister's skill in convincing us that all is well. Those of us who think that, where possible, we should give people the money to do their own thing rather than adopt a paternalistic attitude have been defeated. Whatever the Government's reasons for introducing the measure, it is a defeat for that principle. We are moving from extending people's freedom by giving them cash to local authorities being generous gate-keepers, the Minister hopes, for the new benefit.

Mr. Scott: Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide care packages for the elderly, the disabled and other vulnerable people. When the community care arrangements of Sir Roy Griffiths were seen as the most sensible way forward, cash provision was not envisaged. There is now such provision through the continuation of the independent living (1993) fund and that is a great prize for severely disabled people. I note the hon. Gentleman's scepticism. We shall have to see. I shall certainly do my best and I know that the trustees and staff will do their best to continue in the tradition of the foregoing independent living fund in providing sensitive, sensible and generous packages of help for disabled people to enable them to live in their own homes where that is feasible.

Mr. Frank Field: I intervene again on this important issue. I shall not do so at any other stage in the debate. There is all the difference in the world between giving people cash and hoping that local authorities will deliver care packages. Local authorities currently operate under restraints. The packages will be designed largely in line with what local authorities can currently provide using the people that they employ. There is a great difference between a person having the money to design his own package and having discussions with a local authority which then fits that person into the scheme which it thinks that he needs and in line with the number of workers that the authority employs.

Mr. Scott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government's aim and that of many local authorities is that authorities will not simply provide services using the people that they employ, but will co-operate with voluntary organisations and private sector providers. The local authority will be the facilitator for the care packages which will be delivered by other organisations and individuals. Increasingly, local authorities will take a much more flexible approach to providing or facilitating the necessary care packages. The independent living fund will be an important top-up to those arrangements for the most severely disabled people.

Mr. David Willetts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the extra money for local authorities for community care will be ring fenced and that the Government have made it clear that 85 per cent. of those funds are to be spent on private provision of services? Does he agree that one of the arguments for precisely such an arrangement is that it will deal with the anxieties of the


hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) by ensuring that local authorities' care plans are not determined by the services that they themselves provide?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes the point well. I hope that the arrangements will lead to a great deal more flexibility—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not understand these matters. They are so locked into the tramlines of former provision that they do not know the extent of the potential in the new arrangements which my colleagues in the Department of Health and local authorities will be enabled to introduce.
I shall briefly describe the character of the two new funds. The independent living (extension) fund applies to existing cases. The partnership arrangements, with which I shall shortly deal, apply to new cases. Nearly two years ago I first announced that there would be no disruption of the arrangements for existing independent living fund beneficiaries. It would not be fair to individual disabled people to unmake the successful care packages that were devised for them, nor would it have been fair to expect local authorities at a stroke to take on and manage agreements that had been entered into by others.
The independent living (extension) fund has been set up as an independent charitable trust to continue to make payments on the same basis as now to all people who are currently receiving money from the independent living fund or who have temporarily had their payments suspended from 1 April. It would be possible for someone who had entered a short-term care provision and was therefore not receiving a weekly payment from the ILF still to be part of the existing caseload taken on by the extension fund on 1 April.
In practice, the only difference that any recipient of independent living fund support should notice on 1 April is a change of name on the cheque at the time of takeover. The extension fund will continue to have review powers, just as the independent living fund does. Resources for the extension fund in 1993–94 will be of the order of £120 million for the United Kingdom. That is rather more than a 20 per cent. increase on the provision that has been made for this year and should enable adequate provision to be made for any upward reviews, in terms of the care that is needed by disabled people.
I turn now to the independent living (1993) fund. The independent living fund was the pioneer in allowing people with disabilities to take a proactive role in determining how best their care needs could be met. We all welcome that.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has just said that we all welcome the work of the ILF, but is it not a fact that when it was introduced it was attacked by the Labour party and described as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities?

Mr. Scott: I believe that the Opposition have now been convinced and are among the stoutest defenders of the independent living fund. There is joy in heaven on these occasions.

Mr. Frank Field: And there will be again.

Mr. Scott: Yes, but the Opposition will have to go through the whole process all over again.
The ILF was the pioneer in allowing people with disabilities to play that role, with support and professional back-up which is an important element in the package.

That is why, in establishing the 1993 fund, we have built on the case work approach. From April this year, the vast majority of disabled people, including the bulk of those who would have looked to the ILF for help in the past, will, in the first instance, look to their local authority. For the most severely disabled people, whose care needs are so great that without additional help they would have to go into residential or nursing care, the 1993 fund will provide an additional option for social workers in planning packages of care with their disabled clients.
We expect that each year around 1,500 people will get a cash payment from the new fund, as well as help from their local authority. The budget for the first year of this fund will be just over £4 million for the United Kingdom. One has to reflect on the fact that the budget for the larger-scale ILF was £5 million in its first year, only £ 1 million of which was taken up. For a much more restricted caseload, I believe that £4 million is an even more generous provision to meet the demands that are likely to be put upon the fund in its first year.
I have already mentioned that the 1993 fund will work as a partnership between itself—the trustees—and the local authority. All the most severely disabled people who are likely to come within the purview of the fund will already, overwhelmingly, be likely to be in touch with their local authority social services departments because of existing needs. As with the current ILF, the new fund will be restricted to people on low incomes and to those who live alone or with someone who is unable to supply all the care that they need. Eligibility will also be limited, as I think I have already stated, to those of working age—those between 16 and 65.
Where it is clear that the cost of care in the community will be above the national threshold—which, as I have already stated, we have set at £200 a week—the social worker will want to consider whether the client might be eligible for help from the new fund. The fund would then be able to make a topping-up cash payment of up to a further £300, making a total of £500 a week.
I believe, in essence, that the new system will ensure that a significant group of disabled people will be able to look to the primary facilitators of community care, the local authorities, for their community services without losing the extra flexibility of an element of cash payments.

Mr. Dewar: Presumably the qualifying criteria will be a matter for the trustees of the new fund which is to take over new cases. They will, I presume, start on the same higher payment component care, the disability living allowance, basis, but in future they will have to keep within a budget, which will be cash limited. If they cannot do so, the criteria may have to be altered as happened in the past.

Mr. Scott: Manifestly, the new fund, as with the existing fund, will be run on a cash-limited basis. It will be up to the trustees to deploy their resources as necessary. It has been broadly true over the life of the existing independent living fund that there has been an underspend of the cash limit, perhaps because of the trustees' prudence. Nevertheless, we believe that the provision that has been made for both the new fund and the existing cases fund will be adequate to cope with needs for the foreseeable future.
Motability is the organisation that enables people to use the top rate mobility component of their DLA to buy or lease a vehicle specially adapted to their needs.
Motability was launched by the Labour Government and, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It has always had strong all-party support in the House. Governments of both parties have funded it consistently throughout the years.
I intend to mention three Government grants that are made to support the mobility component and facilitate the purchase or lease of vehicles. The Government pay for the administration of Motability which, in the coming years, will be over £2 million. The equipment fund was set up in 1991. It provided £1 million a year for more sophisticated adaptations to meet the needs of the most severely disabled people. From April this year we are doubling that contribution from £1 million to £2 million. The tenth anniversary trust, which was set up in 1988 with £5 million from the Government and £5 million from the clearing banks, provides extra help for the charitable work of Motability—that is, for those people who cannot afford the full cost of leasing, hiring or adapting a car.
Motability has been an immense success story from its very inception by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and others, such as Lord Goodman, who were in at the start and developed the scheme. I am delighted to say that very shortly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to present the keys of the 350,000th Motability vehicle which has been provided under the scheme.
In recent years we have seen many improvements in the spread and coverage of help for disabled people. That has happened under Governments of both parties. In the years since I have been Minister for Social Security and Disabled People I have been proud and happy to play my part in that continuing development. I wholeheartedly welcome the community care changes. I am pleased that the system of support that the independent living fund offers to people with disabilities has survived and is to be developed and taken forward, to take advantage of the wider developments in community care that are being put in place.
In my view, the Bill represents a constructive way forward, building on the foundations set by the ILF and the experience gained from the workings of that body. I am happy that the Government are continuing to fund these organisations, which offer flexibility, independence and a sense of dignity and self worth for many disabled people in our society.
The Government have expanded and developed the range and scope of help for people with disabilities. This Bill, in my view, marks another step in the movement towards a more caring society which offers additional opportunities for all its members, not just those who happen, for the time being, to be able bodied. I believe that the whole House should welcome these improvements.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Bill is important not only in the most general sense; for thousands of severely disabled persons and their families it is crucial and goes to the very core of their existence. However, the Opposition have serious reservations about it, which I shall explain in due course. The Second Reading of the Bill is not, however, the time or the place for ritualistic parliamentary disagreement. It is a unique opportunity to examine the manner in which we provide

services for disabled people in our society towards the end of the 20th century. It is also a convenient time to assess the contribution of the soon to be dismantled independent living fund which the Bill seeks to replace.
The Minister will, I believe, be told by those who sit on this side of the House and by his hon. Friends of serious misgivings, worries and criticisms regarding the new arrangements that are encapsulated in the Bill. I can assure the Minister that we shall be making those points, but constructively and positively.
My task is to examine the extent to which the Bill meets the needs, hopes and aspirations of disabled people and the extent to which it is in tune with the growing desire of disabled people and their families for a sensible system under which they can be in control of their destiny, based in their own homes with as much independence as they wish. The Bill must be judged on the extent to which it empowers and liberates—indeed, satisfies—those whom it is designed to help.
To understand the development of services provided for disabled people, one has to go back at least to Lord Beveridge, the subsequent National Assistance Act 1948 and to the dramatic change in the climate of service provision which emerged with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Those Acts have to be judged fairly in the context of their time. They were based not only on the best available expert opinion but on the fullest understanding that existed then of the needs of the people being helped.
Times have changed. The tradition of service incorporated in those Acts tended to have three salient characteristics or features. The first was a strong emphasis on the ethic of professionalism, the view that the care professionals' perceptions of disabled people's needs and of the priorities in allocating resources were paramount and, in any case, should be considered more valid than disabled persons' perceptions of their own needs.
Secondly, there was a mixture of provision by central Government benefits agencies, such as the Department of Social Security, and local authorities through their social services departments. Thirdly, in the case of local authority provision, there was a lack of statutory backing and an emphasis on discretionary provision. It is still the case that the only statutory provision that seems to exist for disabled people is that local authorities should keep a register and give information on available services, although very few authorities fulfil even that minimal task.
The consequences of the approach that I have just described can be summed up by saying that some good work was carried out in those years by statutory agencies and the newly emerging organisations of disabled people, but that, as times changed and demands altered, the deficiencies became increasingly obvious. One expert, Professor Michael Oliver of the University of Greenwich, said:
Numerous studies over the years show that clients are very unhappy about the way professional assessments have distorted or denied their needs".
Some care professionals are equally unhappy about a system that has forced them to tailor their needs assessment to available resources and currently available provision. In many cases, that goes against their best professional judgment.
The drawback of such a system was that, too often, disabled people were, and still are, forced into a position


of dependency, causing the inevitable feelings of powerlessness, resentment, cynicism and mistrust which a dependency culture entails. In addition, the lack of statutory duties placed on local authorities is mirrored by the lack of statutory rights for disabled people. I shall not unearth the disagreement that I had with the Minister only a couple of Fridays ago about the Disabled Persons (Civil Rights) Bill. Too often, a patchy and inconsistent pattern of provision nationwide results from different local authorities having distinct attitudes to their discretionary powers or distinct levels of resources with which to implement them. Nothing that the Minister has said today fills us with confidence that we are not going back to the bad old days.
Overall, a system of provision did exist—and still exists—which is not only problematic and unsatisfactory in many ways but which many argue is more expensive than the alternatives and, therefore, hardly good value for money. It could be argued that the independent living fund came about partly because of the qualitatively very different attitude towards provision which emerged in the 1970s. We must be clear about where it came from.
I am something of a historian and it is important to get the history as right as we can. The fund clearly stemmed from disabled persons and their families. They were clear about their aspirations: they wanted full integration and participation in the community rather than being left in isolated residential establishments, and they increasingly wanted to control the resources that could make their lives more fulfilled.
Professionals, intellectuals, and even political parties and Governments gradually became aware of, if not fully convinced of, those aspirations. The introduction of care in the community was therefore, in many ways, a missed opportunity to take those aspirations fully on board and to deliver them. It perhaps points in the right direction but is still a missed opportunity.
However, the independent living fund was a successful example of the introduction of a system much in line with the new ideas. Again, the historian in me suspects that, in part, the birth was unexpected and the development uncharted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who knows that there was a crisis, that the Government met it and, almost by accident, produced something that grew into a rather nice child from a rather unexpected baby, if I can mix metaphors. The birth was unexpected and the development uncharted, but we would be very foolish to underrate its innovative character and the value of its existence in the past five years. We pay tribute to the Minister for any hand that he had in it. We do not deny its importance, and any hon. Members who believe that good, healthy pragmatism is useful when considering how to solve social problems will join me in that tribute.
Even the Minister would have been surprised to learn what was going to happen to his creation in five years. The fund was very different, set up by the Minister in 1988 in partnership with the Disablement Income Group as a Government-backed independent discretionary trust—I freely admit that we had many apprehensions about that—largely as a result of the gaping hole in the benefit system which resulted from the change from supplementary benefit to income support, with the consequent abolition of the domestic assistance additional requirement.
The new scheme had two purposes. The first was to assist severely disabled people who need paid domestic

help or personal care if they are to live in their own homes. The second, as Peter Large said—no one has ever put it better—was to make
the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others and a life in which you can mostly choose for oneself
Those words will come back to haunt the Minister, and I shall explain the fear of many people who work in social provision.
The fund was empowered to make grants of up to £560 a week in London, £520 a week in the south-east and £450 a week elsewhere. As I have said, it was a runaway success. The number of individuals helped with grants has risen from an estimated 850 at the scheme's inception to the figure of 21,000, which the Minister gave. I got the figure of 22,500 from the fund, so we roughly agree. In any case, both figures give the measure of the fund's growth. By the time applications closed in November 1992, it had proved extremely popular and cost effective. Why?
It was so popular because it enabled people to obtain precisely the personal assistance that they needed, which has practical advantages. A private contract allows a disabled person to specify exactly with what his personal assistant is to help, which gives a flexibility that local authority job descriptions may not. For example, district nurses are clearly not supposed to help to clean the floor, but the definition of what they are allowed to do might not fit well with the disabled person's priorities. In any case, district nurses are unlikely to have any say in defining the job description. In addition, there are immense emotional benefits to the disabled. One person who was interviewed said:
Employing my own personal assistant has given me the freedom to fulfil the type of lifestyle I wish to follow… I am in total control of making all the choices in my own life.
Examples of the liberating and empowering effect of the independent living fund abound in all the research.
The Minister will be well aware of the Greenwich survey for which he kindly provided a foreword. The survey shows clear examples of cost-effectiveness. Empowering people saves money; it does not cost more money. Mike Oliver and Garry Zarb surveyed a variety of cases in Greenwich and found that in all the savings were considerable—as much as 50 per cent. The figure given by directors of social services with whom I have talked in the past few days was 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. No one said that the costs were higher; everyone said that the costs were appreciably less.
Oliver and Zarb say:
Giving disabled people what they say they want is cheaper than giving them what the authorities think they need.
That comment goes to the heart of the matter. Oliver and Zarb also say:
Our work in Greenwich suggests that providing disabled people with the services they demand may be cheaper than continuing to fund, inflexible dependency-creating ones.
The empowering approach exemplified by the independent living fund is well summed up in recent research by Jenny Morris, who carried out a study for the Rowntree trust entitled "Community Care or Independent Living", which came out a couple of months ago. In tracing the approach to the independent living movement which emerged among organisations representing and controlled by disabled people in the 1970s and the 1980s, she draws a sharp distinction between the conventional view of independence—that people need to be able to do everything for themselves if they are not to be treated as


dependent and subordinate—and the more positive and pragmatic view of independence as the ability to achieve goals.
Jenny Morris also sees independent living as a civil liberties issue. People have not only the right to have control over basic living tasks, such as when they get up, when they go to bed, when they go to the toilet and what and when they eat, but the right to have a personal relationship, to seek employment and to engage in leisure and political activities. If those rights are to be more than mere verbiage, measures must be taken to make them effective.
Despite its record of success, the fund is to be abolished. We have given bouquets to the Minister and we have shown a little bit of humility in recognising that we did not understand how good the fund would become. We now come to the hard question. As the fund is so successful, why is it to be wound up and replaced by something far inferior? Despite the fund's record of success, it is to be abolished and its work is to be taken over by two new bodies. The independent living (extension) fund is intended to take over the existing caseload of the independent living fund and the independent living (1993) fund is intended to take on new cases. I was amused when the Minister explained that it was an entirely new body with the same name. I am not sure whether this is a case of changing names to protect the innocent or a case of keeping the same name to protect the guilty. The changes are rather confusing.
There is another confusing point on which I seek to draw the Minister. He paid some nice tributes to the trustees of the fund. He said that the 10 trustees, five of whom were appointed by the Secretary of State and five of whom were from the Disablement Income Group, had done a wonderful job. I hope that the Minister will throw a reception for them and will ask them in to the Department for champagne, or whatever is appropriate. As I understand it, the Minister has not thanked them personally and has not explained to them face to face why good and honest servants who have done a darned good job for five years and who have made the fund the jewel in the crown——

Mr. Scott: I am afraid that we did not run to champagne. However, the trustees have been in for lunch and I have thanked them warmly and personally.

Mr. Sheerman: That must have happened since I talked to the trustees; it was a rapid invitation. I am glad that the Minister has done that.
The trustees with whom I have talked are concerned. They have run the fund extremely successfully for five years. They have a wealth of knowledge that they could impart to the Minister to help the two new bodies, but the Minister has not asked them. Some of them feel frustration and bitterness. They feel that they have done a remarkably successful job, yet their experience is for nothing. Why on earth has the Minister not taken counsel from them and taken their advice in setting up the two new bodies? It is not good enough to say that the new bodies are entirely separate new projects which have little to do with the old one. The trustees have expertise and good will. The Minister has a reputation for listening to and acting on

opinions expressed by people who know what they are talking about, but that reputation will suffer. I do not intend to go further on that point.
The funding of the independent living (extension) fund will be limited. I understand that the figure was originally to be £170 million, but that it is now to be £120 million in 1993–94. We are still a bit concerned about that, and I hope that we can talk about that later. The best estimate is that, by the end of March 1993, 22,000 people will have benefited from the fund. From simple sums on the back of an envelope, assuming a minimum average of £110 a week, a total of £124 million is necessary. The figure of £120 million looks close to a shortfall. That is worrying, especially when one considers new needs and the increased needs of some of the people who already draw from the fund. Perhaps the Minister will give us a little more detail on that later. I do not intend to make a great issue of it now, as I am sure that my hon. Friends will say more about it later.
There is a further matter of great importance and great principle. Those over 65 are to be excluded from the new arrangements. In November 1992, 34 per cent. of the independent living fund's caseload comprised people over 65. It is not good enough to say, as the Minister says regularly, that the Government have decided to put the emphasis on people in the younger, working age group, especially as the independent living fund has been enormously successful for people over 65 as well as for those between 16 and 65. To cut off that percentage of the population from a scheme that has been so highly valued seems mean-spirited. We are not talking about a lot of money from the Exchequer. It seems that the change is Exchequer-driven rather than driven by the Minister
The administrative arrangements for making an application to the independent living (1993) fund are clumsy and complicated. The beauty of the independent living fund has been its simplicity, which disabled people have admired. The Minister made us even more worried when he talked about gateways and gatekeepers, and about local authorities being in the driving seat. Surely we should now put the disabled person in the driving seat. That is what the independent living fund did. We do not want a committee of local authorities and Government Departments having to make decisions for the disabled person.

Mr. Scott: I was at pains on more than one occasion to make it clear that the whole thrust of the care in the community policy was to involve disabled people in the decision-making process about the package of services provided for them. No longer will local authorities tell people what they get. They will ask people what they want and they will seek to provide it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the attitudes of professionals. I meet many professionals and I believe that their attitudes have changed radically over the past two or three years. They do not simply tell people what they will get. They are moving into a new culture of listening and seeking to provide.

Mr. Sheerman: I am not much mollified by that intervention. The Minister has referred to gateways and gatekeepers, and to local authorities being in the driving seat. If he looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that that was the language that he used. The Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of


Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils are all worried about the bureaucratic nature of the new arrangements and about the loss of the close direct relationship with the fund that existed under the old ILF arrangements.

Mr. Willetts: I confess that I am becoming increasingly confused as to what the Opposition's policy on provision for severely disabled people is. If the Opposition support the principle of community care, how can they wish to keep the old arrangements for the independent living fund, which are manifestly incompatible with the principle of giving local authorities legal responsibility for community care?

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks somewhat. We strongly believe that policy in these matters should be driven by what disabled people want. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to the earlier part of my speech, he would know that that is exactly what drives the Opposition's policy. I hope to show that it is possible to achieve a proper synthesis between the ILF and care in the community.
Previously, applications could be made directly to the ILF. That was one of its strengths. The new procedures involved what the Minister described in the debate on 25 February as
a tripartite settlement, as it were, between the customer, the local authority social worker and the social worker for the independent living fund."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1126.]
What is supposed to happen is that the local authority provides the first £200, then, if it seems appropriate, an application can be made to the fund up to a ceiling of£500 in total. Last week, I telephoned a number of directors of social services. I said earlier that we were concerned about whether the new arrangements—like them or not—would be up and running by 1 April. The Minister must realise that there is an enormous amount of confusion even among people of the professional excellence of directors of social services. Directors place totally different interpretations on the£500 limit. A senior member of the Association of Directors of Social Services believed that if the total sum of an application was more than£:500, the person would automatically end up with no independent living fund money and would have to go into residential care. Other directors of social services interpret the£500 ceiling quite differently. Enormous confusion exists among the professionals who, from 1 April—and even now in terms of applications—are supposed to be making the arrangements work.
Moreover, applications are eligible only if the applicant is on the highest level of disability living allowance. Three official bodies—local authority social services departments, the Department of Social Security and the fund—will be involved. That seems unsatisfactory on several counts. First, it involves a clumsy system of divided responsibilities—a recipe for administrative confusion and delay. As I said earlier, the AMA, the ACC and the Association of Directors of Social Services have all picked up on that point and have described the new arrangements as likely to lead to
muddled personal assistance provision for the severely disabled".
That last quotation is from a press release issued by the Spinal Injuries Association.
Secondly, circular LASSL (93) makes it plain that people are supposed to apply for money from the new fund

only if they have received at least £200 from the local authority—£210 with the extra £10—and with the approval and assistance of their local authority social services department. The Minister talked about gateways and gatekeepers. What if the local authority department is unsympathetic to the individual? What recourse will there be in such circumstances? What if the authority chooses not to exercise its powers to assist disabled people? We must remember that most of the powers are discretionary rather than statutory. What if the local authority simply does not have the money to supply the first £200? That is possible because, although the £539 million is ring-fenced as a transitional grant for community care in local authority budgets, the money allocated for services to disabled people is not ring-fenced within that ring fence. We know what will happen in some local authorities when that budget is under pressure: the money allocated to services for disabled persons could be diverted.

Mr. Willetts: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was complaining about excessive bureaucracy in the arrangements. Is he now saying that he wants not just a ring fence in respect of the central Government contribution to community care cases but a ring fence within that ring fence? That would be a nightmare.

Mr. Sheerman: Not at all. There are plenty of examples of money in local authority budgets being ring-fenced for specific purposes. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient, as I shall return to his question in due course.
The effect of the changes will be to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the new scheme, to introduce a large measure of uncertainty, to disempower disabled people and to move a large measure of control back into the hands of local authority social services departments.
Thirdly, the circular does not make it at all clear what happens if the total application exceeds £500. The phrasing in the explanatory notes to the circular can be interpreted in two ways—either help can be provided up to a ceiling of £500 a week or applications in excess of £500 will simply be ineligible for help. We seek guidance on that, in the interests not of making a paltry point but of trying to help people.
In any case, the £500 limit does not make sense economically as, in many areas, residential care is more expensive than that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe pointed out the other evening. The Greater London Association for the Disabled did some research on residential care costs and came up with a sample of figures—£510, £605,£800 and £925 a week. Similarly, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People found that residential charges at the Royal hospital Putney, not far from the Minister's constituency, varied between £605 and £807 a week—again, significantly higher than the £500 ceiling. As a means of saving public money, that ceiling is frankly bizarre and, in our view, will lead to more money being spent rather than less.
Jenny Morris's research for the Rowntree trust highlights another important issue. In many cases, suitable residential care facilities simply do not exist. The alternatives to being empowered to live in one's own home may be a geriatric ward or the nightmare of being forced to remain in an abusive family situation. The Spinal Injuries Association, which has expressed deep and well-argued disquiet over the new proposals, has aptly described the possibilities under the Bill as "imprisonment


without crime". The BCODP has made a strong statement to the effect that forced institutionalisation is a breach of human rights, and is prepared to refer the proposals in the Bill to the European Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and the European Court of Human Rights.
In the debate of 25 February 1993, the Minister, referring to the old independent living fund, said:
a system based upon individual assessment, and on the discretion…of individual trustees, has been a considerable success, and has been able to respond much more flexibly to the needs of individual disabled people than any regulated system might have done."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1125.]
Well said, sir. The important question is why, having established a proven success in the ILF, the Government now seem determined to move backwards to a far more regulated and less satisfactory system. Is their commitment to individual freedom of choice more apparent than real?
We do not say everything about the independent living fund is sacrosanct and cannot be changed and improved. The Minister is an expert on Puccini, and on his opera "Turandot" in particular. He will remember the princess's lovely line to Calar, "Do not touch me, it is sacrilege". We are not saying that. We are saying that there could be modifications but that the essence of the ILF should be carried on.
The manner in which the changes have been introduced is also disquieting. The old fund closed its list for applications at short notice in November last year leaving existing applicants to rush their applications to completion and causing a hiatus in funding until the new arrangements came into force. I have received many letters from people who missed out because of that and the injustices that occurred
It is not clear at this late stage who will administer the new arrangements. There seems likely to be little continuity of personnel or expertise. The staff of the Disablement Income Group are extremely demoralised because, despite making approaches to the Government and civil service during the preparation of the Bill, their views were not sought or listened to. Five years of expertise in this difficult and sensitive area have been discarded.
Nor does there seem to have been any real consultation with bodies representing disabled people. The Spinal Injuries Association and others have complained about that. When the ILF is decommissioned on 31 March, it is not clear whether the new arrangements will be set up in time to ensure an orderly continuity to cover existing clients. That is a very real worry. The 21,000 or 22,000 people concerned are very dependent on the effective working of the fund. Although the Minister said that there would just be a different name on the cheque, the important point is whether the cheque arrives in time on the day. That is vital.
The timing is doubly unfortunate. The Government's community care initiative was intended, ostensibly at least, to increase consumer choice. However, just as it is coming into force, the ILF, which has successfully promoted consumer choice for five years for a consumer group whose choices were previously extremely limited, is being quietly strangled. We are not even given the option of leaving the ILF in place in its proven and successful form, at least until community care has bedded down. That

would seem to be another enlightened, pragmatic approach in respect of the changeover! Disruption will be piled on disruption and the clients will suffer.
I do not go as far as Professor Oliver, who said:
So successful has one scheme been in giving users control over their own services that the Government have abolished it. It was called the Independent Living Fund.
That is quite strong language, but very perceptive.
If the abolition of the ILF and its replacement by an alternative and more clumsy scheme makes little sense in terms of service provision, there must be another reason for the change. I suggest that there is a hidden agenda. In a sense, the ILF has been too successful. Its growth from an envisaged total of about 800 clients to some 21,000 or 22,000 has led to a much higher level of expenditure than originally expected, even bearing in mind the lower cost per head. Expenditure rose from £1 million in 1988–89 to £97 million in 1992–93.
If a good grant scheme like the old ILF is available, people tend to use it. That can reveal a higher level of need than was originally anticipated. The Government's response has been to replace a good grant scheme with a bad one. I contend that it is the Treasury's desire to control expenditure that is the real hand behind the present changes, not a desire to improve services. That is the root of the new measures incorporated in the Bill.
The trouble that the Government find with a direct payment scheme is that it tends to make the true level of need very obvious indeed. Under the traditional system of funding services and then setting cash limits on them, that need could be concealed. For example, service constraints could mean that if too many people needed a home help, the home help would come once a fortnight instead of once a week. That disguises the true position. While that may conceal the scale of need, it is totally unacceptable. The proposal amounts to pushing disabled people back into a grey limbo.
In the words of a member of the ILF's trustees, the new arrangements have taken the
spiritual essence of the Fund
right out of the centre.
The Opposition believe that the Bill represents a real missed opportunity. I do not say that in a spirit of party debate. I say it in terms of what I have called enlightened pragmatism. The Minister had a great success on his hands. Instead of using it as a springboard and an opportunity to change the lives of disabled people, he has drawn short. He has either gone into reverse or stopped.
As I said earlier, fundamental changes are occurring in our society which the Minister is underrating. Disabled people will no longer accept the definitions of status or situations that were considered appropriate even a few years ago. There is an unstoppable movement for empowerment. In a real sense, the Minister significantly encouraged that movement. He set up the ILF.
The challenge before us today is to listen to the groundswell and the change in ideas and beliefs in the disabled community. We should learn from the experience of the past five years. Those changing ideas were reflected in a report by the Select Committee on Social Services which stated:
We recommend that the ILF should continue to exist, not only for an interim period, but also after the implementation of community care legislation, and should be provided with sufficient resources to meet the claims of those who meet the present criteria for help from the Fund, and whose needs have not been met through the eventual implementation of community care policy.


Some hon. Members have seen and understood the changes in ideas and know how we must learn from recent experience. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not in the Chamber. I believe that he has seen the future and knows that it works. He understands better than most in the House how the empowerment of disabled people comes from giving them resources directly, by giving them the cash and leaving them to make their own decisions.
It may not be too late to improve the Bill or to do something in parallel which could save it. If the ideas of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent were incorporated in the Bill and if local social services departments were able to give direct cash payments to individuals, the result could be a dramatic improvement for disabled people in our society.
The sensible way ahead is always for legislators to listen to the people and to act accordingly. The people affected by the Bill want to be able to empower themselves and the best way to do that is to improve the existing ILF both in statutory rights and in rights of appeal.
The Opposition take no hard ideological line on the question. Sensible people believe in markets and market mechanisms when they work and reject them when they are inappropriate and do not work for people. In this case, we believe that they work. At the end of the day, giving disabled people what they say they want is better and cheaper than giving them what we think they want. We believe that the future priority of all Governments must be to assist the empowerment of disabled people and an early introduction of personal assistance schemes are a right that cannot be resisted much longer.

Mrs. Marion Roe: In spite of the very heavy programme in the Chamber involving debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I am pleased that the Government have at last found time for the Second Reading of this important Bill, thus fulfilling the Conservative party manifesto pledge at the last general election.
The final stage of the Government's community care reforms will take effect from 1 April. It is vital that financial support will continue to be given to the most severely disabled people in the community to ensure that they can live in their own homes and exercise the independence which so many of them deeply cherish.
I am sure that I am right in saying that the principles of community care are supported by all parties in the House. The most important aspects of the reforms are choice and the flexibility that the reforms provide for care to be tailored to individual needs and the fact that individuals should be consulted on how their needs should be met.
As president of the Broxbourne organisation for the disabled, which represents disabled people and their carers in my constituency, I have been made well aware of the enormous benefit that disabled people have derived from the independent living fund.
I should like to stress to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) that, under the new independent living (1993) fund, the fact that disabled people are consulted about their needs must be a key factor in the package of care that is proposed. I accept his assurances that that will be so.
I learned the importance of such co-operation the hard way through personal experience. A couple of years ago,

I was challenged by members of the Broxbourne organisation for the disabled to spend a day in a wheelchair. It felt that I should discover for myself that when getting around the constituency grave mobility difficulties must be overcome and that local authorities' good intentions are not enough to encourage disabled people to get out and about and to give them the support and help that they need. I accepted the challenge and realised very quickly that life for those who are wheelchair-bound would have been made much easier if they had had a say in the provision of facilities for disabled people.
My first engagement was to visit a canal barge that I had launched some months before to test the wheelchair lift that was installed to ensure that disabled people, like everybody else, could enjoy the delights of sailing on the River Lee. To reach the barge, my husband, who was acting as my carer, had to push me over a large area of deep cobblestones on the quay. The result was that by the time I reached the barge I felt that I had been given a series of electric shocks. It was the most uncomfortable ride that I have ever undertaken. If only local authorities had thought to consult the users of the facility before designing it.
At the end of my day in the wheelchair I visited the local library, which prided itself on providing good access to the building for wheelchair users. When I arrived, I was advised to attempt to enter the building on my own without my husband's help. I turned the wheels of the chair up the ramp towards the spring doors, only to discover that they opened towards me. As I tried to pull the doors open, my wheelchair started to run backwards down the ramp, much to the amusement of onlookers. Although I have strong arms, it took me about 10 minutes to get inside the library; a weaker person would not have made it. All the good intentions of the architect and local authority were lost because the users of the service had not been consulted first.
I give full credit to Hertfordshire county council, because following this incident it changed the doors to the sliding variety to overcome the problem. There is no doubt that the consultation process is paramount in assessing the needs of disabled people. Their voice should be heard as well as that of their carer, if appropriate.
Severely disabled people value the independence that the independent living fund has given them and I therefore welcome the Bill because it will ensure that that vital support will continue.
The Health Select Committee, of which I am Chairman, is conducting an inquiry into community care. We intend to publish the first part of our report next Thursday. I cannot, of course, reveal our findings or our recommendations, but I have no doubt that hon. Members will find our report extremely helpful and interesting.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The reverse side of this one-page Bill bears the legend:
Presented by Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott…
To be fair to the Secretary of State for Social Security, I prefer to think, for reasons that I shall explain, that the real presenter of this Bill is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is in truth a Treasury Bill. The other Ministers named are but camp followers supporting a measure that severely disabled people feel could deprive them of their independence. They fear that sooner or later, unless there is an urgent change of policy, they will be forced into institutions, at far greater cost to the taxpayer than that of enabling the independent living fund to help them.
For severely disabled people, that is what this debate is all about. They see what they regard as their incontestable right to live in their own homes, instead of being shut away in long-stay institutions, being challenged by the new arrangements the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) announced last November.
In my Adjournment debate on the ILF on 25 February, I posed a series of questions about the future of the fund of enormous importance to all severely disabled people. Some were answered by the Minister, others were not. Since then, I have had further answers, but there are still unresolved questions which I want now briefly to raise again. One of them is whether the Minister can give me a categorical assurance that no existing beneficiaries will have to wait for payment after 31 March, when the shutters finally come down on the old ILF.
That question was put to me before my Adjournment debate by Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, than whom no one knows more about the work and value of the ILF, and he raised it again in a letter I had from him last Friday. His concern is that payment mechanisms—accounts, cheques, authorisation slips and so on—will not be ready in time. Very charitably, he says that the DSS has been
delayed by the Treasury's reluctance to allow a new Fund.
On 25 February, I quoted from Peter Large's earlier letter to me about the fund:
You can imagine our distress",
he said,
to see the threat of the ILF being throttled to death".
Recalling that statement, he says in his further letter of 11 March:
I have to write now to tell you that the ILF as we have known it is dead. The two new funds are but pale ghosts of the original ILF. The assassins from the Treasury have done their work.
From a Fund that will have spent some £117 million helping over 22,000 disabled people last year, we move to a Fund spending in its first year a mere £4 million on an estimated 1,500 people. All pretence of allowing discretion on the part of the Trustees has been ended.
He goes on to say:
The Trust Deed and the Agreement in respect of both funds effectively stifle all initiative and ensure that all goes according to the demands of the Treasury. Anyone who knows anything about severely disabled people will be horrified to read the four documents.
Thus, Peter Large is in no doubt that this is a Treasury Bill, nor should any of us be in any doubt that, much apart from being a mere supporter of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is its real author.
In future, disabled people will have to face questioning by two vetting authorities: the local authority social services department and the assessment officer of the independent living (1993) fund. Both the local authority and the fund will have the power to refuse, reduce or stop help. The disabled person has no right of appeal to anyone. Moreover, an upper cash limit is imposed on payments to keep a severely disabled person out of an

institution. Existing beneficiaries and those of the new fund will face intrusive questioning about their private habits and needs.
In regard to the upper limit on payments, the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my speech on 25 February:
I do not believe…there is anything offensive in our setting an upper limit beyond which it is not unreasonable that people who need help should…decide, sometimes reluctantly, that the time has come for them to go into residential care."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1126.]
The Spinal Injuries Association describes this as "a most shocking statement". It asks
whether £500 is now the going price of freedom in this country?
The association quotes the case of a severely disabled young doctor, living in the community, who needs more than £500 a week in personal assistance services, and poses the question, "Has his time come?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) recalled, the association sees the upper limit on payments as "imprisonment without crime" and an infringement of that young doctor's civil rights. Whenever before did a Government so explicitly impose a price on personal freedom?
I asked on 25 February for details of the trust deeds for the new funds. Their publication since then confirms the worst fears of the organisations for which I sought my Adjournment debate. As we have heard, Peter Large says that anyone who knows anything about severely disabled people will be "horrified" by the documents the Minister has now published.
There are, however, still two important questions that remain unanswered. The first is what happens to severely disabled people who ask the ILF for help between now and 1 April? The answer, say the organisations that represent them, is that no help is available and that there are even worries about future payments to existing beneficiaries now receiving direct payments from local authorities. The second unanswered question is what happens to existing beneficiaries now receiving direct payments from their local councils? Some councils make direct payments to severely disabled people to enable them to buy in personal help and so remain living in their own homes. Will they be able to continue them?
The independent living (1993) fund has a number of most unsatisfactory features. For example, the upper payment limit includes the local authority contribution in kind of £200. Thus effectively there has been a twofold cut in help: first, more stringent criteria of eligibility have been introduced; and, secondly, the maximum limit for individual payments has been reduced.
As no one will be able to insist that a local authority makes its due contribution, both the council and the trustees of the new fund will have a power of veto. Again, and very unfortunately, the director of the fund's job specification suggests that he
will decide whether its help is the most appropriate
How will this be decided? Will some existing beneficiaries be referred to their local authorities when they seek more help? The old ILF enjoyed some flexibility in its operation. This has now gone.
The independent living (1993) fund cannot alter the age groups of beneficiaries. The age limits of 16 to 65 are set down in the deed, which also specifies priorities in saying that
Any applicant who is young and in work should be given priority for receiving financial assistance.


The Minister is aware that, over and above the withering criticisms there have been of the upper limit on payments, there is profound concern about his decision to impose an upper age limit for help. In a statement on its reaction to the Minister's reply to my speech of 25 February, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am an honorary officer, says:
We believe the age limit for applications to the successor bodies to the ILF penalises people for being old as well as ill.
Such age discrimination is a crude example of a Government minimising public expenditure at the expense of an extremely needful group of people.
Jane Lakey, of the Policy Studies Institute, gave details of an instructive case in an article in The Guardian:
Mary is 75 and lives with her sister. They manage to stay in their own home with help from the ILF…Mary and her sister use their ILF money to employ an assistant to help with shopping, washing and cleaning, which they can no longer manage themselves. Their assistant has become a friend.
Mary is quoted as saying that if they did not have access to the ILF
They would try to put both of us in a home. And we are happy here, with good neighbours and friends".
I ask the Minister urgently to meet the Alzheimer's Disease Society to hear at first hand about the very disturbing effect of his decision to impose an age limit which, in the case that I have quoted, would most certainly have involved higher public spending and the loss for disabled people of their homes and friends.
The Bill gives powers to make grants to Motability, as the Minister said, as well as to the ILF's successor bodies. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, I was centrally involved, as the then first-ever Minister for the Disabled in this or any other country, in the creation of Motability; and I have been a patron since its inception 16 years ago. The idea of creating Motability came to me when I was introducing the mobility allowance and we created a wholly unique partnership, one between the Government, voluntary effort, the banks, insurance companies, motor manufacturers and dealers, that has made it possible for hundreds of thousands of disabled people to secure cars. Without it the great majority of beneficiaries would not have a car at all.
Nobody then imagined that Motability would turn out to be such an outstanding success, with a total now of some 350,000 new vehicles supplied since we launched the scheme in the 1970s, If account is taken of the number of people in the families of disabled people who benefit from Motability's work, its beneficiaries must now have reached a total approaching the size of the Chinese army! My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said that the Minister had a big success on his hands with the old ILF. What kind of success, then, has Motability been?
The success of the contract hire scheme is shown by the fact that well over 85 per cent. of people coming to the end of a three-year agreement choose to have another Motability car. Our promise of financial support for Motability in the original memorandum in 1977 has been honoured by successive Governments over all the years since it was set up; and I am sure that this will continue.
Enormous demands are now being made on Motability's own resources to help where the mobility component of the disability living allowance is insufficient to pay for the car the disabled person needs. The amount spent on grants has risen from £366,000 in 1988–89 to nearly £2,500,000 in 1991–92. These demands make the

Government's grant for administrative costs essential. Without it Motability would be unable to continue its work.
I know from my own experience what a huge difference a Motability car can make to many families. Without the scheme often the disabled member would be literally housebound. It was gratifying to learn that Motability's own surveys show that, besides describing the beneficial effects on their own lives, new customers say that for the first time ever they are now able to help others.
I pay warm tribute to the staff of Motability and Motability Finance Ltd., to the enthusiastic co-operation of officials of the Department and to the governors of the charity, who selflessly devote so much time to its work.
Voluntary financial support for Motability will be needed even more in the future; and I am glad it is now undertaking a fundamental review of fund-raising activities. I also note Motability's gratitude to the Department for the creation of the equipment fund, which has made possible grants for the most severely disabled drivers and passengers. At the same time, I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Chelsea for the tribute he paid in his speech to my part in creating what is a most important organisation for disabled people who are unable to walk.
When the Minister comes to reply, I ask him to do so constructively to the renewed concern I have expressed about the inadequacies of the ILF's successor bodies, to deal with the unanswered questions I have posed, and to offer some hope to the severely disabled people, not least the elderly among them, whose claims I have sought to articulate in this debate.

Mr. Alan Howarth: As we debate this Bill, the centre of our concern should be the scope that it provides for severely disabled people to live independently. I know that is at the heart of the personal concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He was the father of the independent living fund, just as the Disablement Income Group was the midwife. I pay tribute to them, to the trustees of the independent living fund and to the staff at Nottingham for their achievements since 1988 in making it possible for independent living to become a reality for significant numbers of the most severely disabled people.
We should see support for independent living as, above all, a moral imperative. In a great many cases disability is less a function of physical impairment than a failure by us—family, friends, professionals, society and politicians acting on its behalf—to do as much as we can to enable the physically impaired person to take control of his or her life and to take his or her full place in society.
I was glad, therefore, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health recently told the House:
The cornerstone of our community care reforms is the empowerment of the individual."—>[Official Report, 26 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 858.]
He was speaking in the spirit of the opening words of the foreword to the White Paper, "Caring for People":
Helping people to lead, as far as possible, full and independent lives is at the heart of the Government's approach to community care.
Similarly, the social services inspectorate, in its guidance for local authorities on assessment procedures, takes it as a principle that people should


be in charge of their own lives and make their own decisions, including decisions to take risks.
Those are clarion statements, but I want to be surer than I am that the practicalities of policy remain fully consistent with them. The trust deed that constitutes the independent living (1993) fund contains a provision in section 2, under "Definitions and Interpretations", which states that "pay to" shall include
apply for the benefit of
But that is the crucial distinction. To elide it is to travel back to a paternalism and to assumptions about dependence from which it has been the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Minister and of the ILF to carry us forward.
I lay my main emphasis on the desirability of provision to assist disabled people being made in the form of cash payments, enabling them to be in charge of purchasing and organising their own domestic and personal assistance. The Government have no objection to that in principle—that is what the social security system does, what the ILF has done and what the two new funds are to do.
However, the Government raise objections to local authority social services departments making cash payments. They observe that it is contrary to the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948. In this Bill, we have a legislative opportunity to dispose of that obstacle. The Government raise other objections. They say that there would be problems in defining appropriate eligibility to receive such payments. That problem arises with any benefit and presents no difficulty that cannot be surmounted as a matter of routine. The Government again say that there would be problems of cost control. But the various disciplines on local authority spending are real enough and well known to us all. I see no difficulty in social services departments assessing the value of care that they should provide for a client and paying over the relevant sums, at appropriate intervals, with requirements for clients to account for how the money has been spent, and for a periodic review of assessments. The Government also say that it would be excessively bureaucratic. I would suggest, with respect, that it would be less bureaucratic than the scheme that the Government intend, whereby social services departments will organise, in detail, the provision of the various services required by a client.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health recently acknowledged to the House the extent of support for cash payments. It did not sound like the fiercest opposition when he said that the Government are not ready at this stage to take that on board. I hope that I can assist him to persuade colleagues—whoever they are, whether in the Department of the Environment, or in the Treasury—who need to be persuaded to take that plunge.
Social services departments, of their nature, are unable to provide services to clients with the same sensitivity, flexibility and precision as disabled people themselves. Notwithstanding the personal commitment of local authority staff, bureaucracies are always liable to fit the client to the service, rather than the other way round.
Ann Kestenbaum, in her research for the ILF, and Jenny Morris, for the Rowntree trust, have both documented this in persuasive case histories. Jenny Morris quotes a disabled woman, Elizabeth, who says:
Yes, sometimes they're very patronising. They're overbearing and they want to do more than I actually need.

They want to give help in a…this is a hard word for me to say but I'm going to say it…custodial sense rather than facilitate. It's a big difference. When you're being custodial you're, well you're dictating aren't you, more or less, you're smothering a person's sense of independence.
That is exactly what we do not want to do. Care in the community must not be institutionalisation in the community.
The simplest way out of that snare is to enable local authorities to pay cash to clients. The psychological and practical value of this to severely disabled people is immense, as the ILF's experience attests. Ann Kestenbaum found:
When clients and family carers were asked what it was about their care arrangements that they valued most highly, a number of themes repeatedly emerged: choice of care assistant; continuity; flexibility; respite; self-respect; control; and choice of where to live. These benefits were clearly perceived as being directly related to their ability to pay for care.
She cites moving case histories to exemplify those points.
Jane Lakey of the Policy Studies Institute has researched the same issue more recently. I shall quote what some of her interviewees said:
I know I can feel at ease with people I choose.
Because they're employed you don't feel embarrassed to ask for too much help.
I can get the hours that are most helpful to me. Times for lifting and bathing as I wish.
You can pick who you want. Someone with the same interests
You can employ friends. People you know and like and do things you want to do.
You can tell them more and instruct them and not feel you're begging them to help you.
Other people have commented how important it is to them to be able to give back rather than simply to take
Only 5 per cent. of the ILF's severely disabled clients have found themselves unable to handle the recruitment and management of their assistants. The new confidence and the enhancement of self-esteeem that the experience provides are restorative and enabling for disabled people. A number of disabled people have used the experience as a springboard to get into work.
Cash payments are, moreover, better value for money. Helpers employed through ILF grants cost less per hour than helpers employed by social services departments and fewer of them are needed as they are more flexible and adaptable in what they will do. Disabled people usually want a streamlined system to minimise the complication in their lives of helpers, equipment and so forth. They have an obvious interest in cost-effective arrangements that enable their incomes to go as far as possible.
Local authorities acknowledge that the money goes further in the hands of clients. At the annual general meeting of the Association of Directors of Social Services last autumn, there was unanimous support for a resolution calling for local authorities to be empowered to make direct payments to disabled people. The association stated:
The case for direct cash payments, following careful assessment and the application of eligibility criteria, is overwhelming in terms of autonomy, direct management, quality assurance and value for money. In addition such schemes encourage flexibility and creativity beyond that which a local authority may be able to offer.
The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities back the directors. I am not aware of any disability organisation that does not agree with them. As it is, however, the Government have not accepted the point and I am apprehensive that the new


system to be established by the Bill will produce less satisfactory results than we could achieve. To provide, through different channels, a mix of services and cash will not, I fear, be the best arrangement, in many cases at least.
The Spinal Injuries Association tells us that the average cost of care in its field is £300 per week. There is no way, if the first £200 worth of support has to be provided in the form of local authority services, that the client can, with another £100 from the 1993 fund, design and control his own arrangements for assistance.
It is expected that the new 1993 fund, with £4 million, will support 1,500 new clients in the year. They will receive an average of £50 cash a week compared to the average payment by the ILF of more than twice that. The figure of 1,500 new clients compares with 8,500 new clients for the ILF in 1992. I understand that there is a backlog of 6,500 applicants. It is hard to believe that there will not be some numbers of disappointed disabled people.
The 1993 fund starts with £4 million, which is due to rise to £17 million by 1995–96. It is intended as a fund to top up the provision to be made by local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister expressed confidence that it would be sufficient. But it may be as well to remember that the ILF itself was originally conceived as a top-up fund. It started at £5 million in 1988. By 1992, by which time local authorities were contributing in no more than half its cases and numbers were rising towards the present 21,000 clients, its budget was £97 million. I hope that the Government will be alert to recognise any need that emerges to increase the fund beyond present plans. After all, how confident can we be that the extra £26 million made available for local authorities will be applied to benefit the most severely disabled? One local authority has told the Disablement Income Group that it expects to use part of that money for day and respite care for children. The £26 million is not ring fenced for the most severely disabled and it may seep away.
Much depends on whether the money provided for community care generally proves sufficient. None of us yet knows. Local authorities are, however, worried about it and consequently they are worried about the risks that they will take in making assessments of need about the £200 level. The 1993 fund has only £4 million. If the trustees decline to make a grant to a particular client and the local authority has committed itself to an assessment above £200, it will be obliged to meet the full cost. There is, therefore, a pressure on local authorities to minimise their assessments of client needs.
I hope that the £117 million to be provided for the independent living (extension) fund will also be sufficient for its purposes. The fund will inherit 21,000 clients. Latterly, I have been advised—I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that it has been paying out grant at the rate of £125 million a year, with administration costs on top of that. Lord Henley has said in another place that all those in receipt of funds from the ILF will be protected under the new arrangements. The very detailed requirements for financial reporting month by month set out in the agreement between the trustees and the Secretary of State mean, at any rate, that the Government will get a prompt alert if that pledge looks like running into difficulties.
I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to section 6·1 of the agreement, which adds specificity to section 6·3 of the trust deed by saying:

the Trustees shall not pay pursuant to the Trusts of the Deed more than £560 per week to or for the benefit of any person.
I may have misunderstood, but it struck me that that might be inconsistent with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of 25 January when he said:
Subject to its cash limited provision, the successor body will have an unfettered power to review the awards of existing beneficiaries."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 587.]
I mention that not in any nitpicking frame of mind, but because it would seem a not insignificant point, as the needs of clients are liable to rise as they grow older and the £560 limit on awards set by the ILF might need to rise over time. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, or my right hon. Friend the Minister, could resolve that difficulty for me.
The Government are setting a limit of £500 on how much can be spent per week to support the needs of a severely disabled person through the local authority and the 1993 fund together. Is it wise, or cost effective, to set this cap? Domiciliary care is pretty well always cheaper than residential. The Spinal Injuries Association has told me of the case of a young man of 28, totally paralysed from the neck downwards as the result of a trampolining accident. After four years in hospital and residential institutions he was able to move into his own flat, thanks to a package of help from the ILF and his local authority worth £650 to £700 per week. If that young man were to have his accident today, he would not apparently be so fortunate. Can it really be the case that the £500 limit would mean his being confined in an institution, which would be more exepensive to the local authority as well as deeply frustrating for him? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is not so. If it is, I hope that the trustees and my right hon. and hon. Friends will argue vigorously for an increase in the £500 limit.
By the way, the schedule of meetings set out for the trustees in such detail in the deed will not help them very much in making their case. If they meet only in October to minute the Secretary fo State in November as to their funding requirements for the following year, they will be far too late for the public expenditure survey round. It looks as if the Treasury got at that bit of drafting.
My right hon. Friend said that anticipation of mounting costs is the reason why the Government have set an age limit for new clients of the 1993 fund. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has positively sought to provide more and better help to younger, severely disabled people who have not had the opportunity to build up savings and pension entitlements. I applaud that, as I am sure we all do, but I am somewhat bothered that section 4 of the first schedule of the 1993 trust deed, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) observed, goes so far as to say:
Any applicant who is young and in work should be given priority for receiving financial assistance.
The annual report of the ILF for 1991–92 shows that 37 per cent. of its clients were aged 60 or over. Already, there is discrimination against people over 65 in respect of disability living allowance. I feel that elderly people have an equal claim on our society for care. Nor need the cost be unmanageable. The Government's own estimate is that it would cost an additional £2 million if the fund were permitted to take on people over retirement age, rising to £9 million by 1995–96. That is not exorbitant.
The trust deed, the agreement and the circular of 4 March between them do not, I think, provide answers to


a number of specific, practical questions. Who will apply to the new fund—the local authority or the client? How are joint assessments to be made? How is £200 worth of local authority services to be defined and measured? What £200 buys varies, in any case, significantly in different parts of the country, but that is a different point.
There appears to be scope for confusion and even, I fear, antagonism. Will harmonious co-operation be furthered by the requirement on the trustees in section 8(7) of the deed that, if they are of the opinion that any local authority is not fulfilling its statutory obligations to provide personal care to a client, they should
forthwith report the matter to the Secretary of State"?
Was it necessary to put that in? We do not want disabled people losing out amid disagreement and rows between local authorities and the fund. No doubt rows would be exceptional, but there is a danger that arrangements designed and put together piecemeal will not be efficient.
The relatively complicated processes required are also liable to take a lot of time. If, in order to wind it up, the ILF had to be closed to new applicants four months before care in the community was due to start on its new basis, how much longer will it take for a new, untried and more complicated system to deliver help to severely disabled people? We could have a disturbingly long hiatus.
The new system is due to be operational two-and-a-half weeks from now. After tonight, money can be paid into the two funds by the Department. I understand, however, that much has still to be done to establish the new administrative arrangements. Do the new funds yet have their director? I believe that the ILF staff at Nottingham have had their contracts extended until July, but they have not been encouraged to stay and many of them are leaving. It would surely be preferable to have as much continuity as possible between the ILF and the two new funds. The Department's press notice of 24 November explained that the ILF would be closing the next day
to ensure an orderly handover of cases to the successor bodies".
There is an enormous amount that the successor bodies can learn and inherit from the ILF.
For example, over its five years, the ILF has developed assessment procedures that provide a model which I very much hope will not be discarded in the new system. Will the ILF's admirable social worker's report form be carried forward and used, with appropriate modifications, by the new funds and by local authorities?
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State confirmed, I think, that none of the trustees of the ILF has been appointed to be a trustee of either of the new funds. I understand that there has not even been consultation with them. That seems curious. It is true that the ILF trustees have been rather sturdy people; they have needed to be positioned as they have been between the Treasury and the disablement movement. But I do not think my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled ever minded that.
I recognise, as my right hon. Friend observed, that the new bodies will, in important respects, be different from the ILF. The ILF was a joint charitable undertaking between the Government and the Disablement Income Group. The deeds establishing the new funds preclude independent trustees. The emphasis in the description of the trustees' role is on monitoring and financial oversight.

The affairs of the trusts will be run by the director, whose appointment must be specifically approved by the Secretary of State and whose job description is clearly set out in the second schedule. The Government plainly intend to exercise tighter control, as is evidenced by the more detailed criteria for eligibility written into the funds. The emphasis in the documents on management practice, while perfectly proper, does perhaps express a somewhat different ethos.
I do not know whether the outgoing ILF trustees would wish to serve on the new bodies. I hope, however, that they would. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can appoint another five trustees for each fund. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not encourage us to expect this to happen, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, after all, invite some of the former trustees to continue to serve. It would help at a practical level with continuity. I hope especially that, come what may, my right hon. Friend will appoint some trustees who are themselves disabled. That would send a signal to disabled people that their voices are heeded, that their expertise and commitment are valued and that the Government believe it right that disabled people should share ownership of the system which we establish for their support.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their continuing commitment to the cause of independent living. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on their achievement in securing funding for the new trusts. I am sure that they will be vigilant and determined to ensure that funding in the event proves sufficient and that the practical operation of the new trusts, in collaboration with local authorities, fulfils the hopes that the most severely disabled people, and all of us on their behalf, have of them.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made a full and, if I may say so, eloquent speech. His interest in the subject is well known. I am sure that his remarks will repay careful study.
I shall begin what I hope will be a brief contribution to the debate with a couple of boring technical points, but I would certainly sleep slightly easier in my bed if I were to receive explanations. First, the Bill is presented under Standing Order No. 48. Surely the Department of Social Security has the power to introduce the grants that we are discussing. If that is so, why is the Bill necessary? Why has Standing Order No. 48 been used to bring the Bill forward? As a fortnight will pass before the new procedure is implemented, perhaps I shall be sent a letter if my questions cannot be answered when the Minister replies.
Secondly, the Bill has the stench of hybridity about it.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is an expert on hybridity.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am receiving some reassuring body language from the Minister. I know that he is a specialist on hybridity as well as crosses from the right wing into the penalty box. That might not be understood by everyone. I wish only to say that the hon. Gentleman is an extremely good inside forward. I have the pleasure of playing in the same parliamentary team. We seem always to get beat.
As I have said, there is an element of potential hybridity. If the Department has considered that, I would welcome some reassurance. It is a peculiar procedure to be giving grants and establishing organisations by means of private deed.
I turn to the substance rather than the technicalities. I feel that the prevailing mood is that the House is rather disappointed that the Government have approached the matter in the way that is set out in the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including myself, had misgivings when the independent living fund was set up. We have all come to recognise, however, that it has played a valuable role for a specialist group with extremely severe disabilities. Have we embarked on the best way of making long-term provision for their needs? We have not stepped back to take a longer term view.
There is an argument for continuing with the ILF. I understand, of course, that the position will change after 1 April when community care is introduced, and I welcome that. Community care, in principle, is an extremely good approach. A case could be constructed, however, that people with extremely severe disabilities should be dealt with outwith the provisions of community care.
Perhaps we should start by asking about the entitlement of those with severe disabilities. What should we be offering them? What choices should we be offering them? What do they expect? If we as a community do not help them, they will not be able to help themselves. It is almost a moral question, and it is one which seems not to have been properly addressed. What duty do we as a legislature owe people who have extremely severe disabilities? These questions are not merely administrative or financial. It seems to me that they are much more fundamental than that. I have the feeling that many in the House take the view that the severely disabled deserve better consideration. Our approach should be more thorough and longer term than that which we seem to be debating this evening.
Does the Bill represent everything that people with severe disabilities may look forward to in the longer term? I hope that that is not the position. I understand, of course, that there is a need to make changes because of the consequences of the introduction of community care, but I hope that the Minister will say that a careful review will continue to be undertaken by the Department.
We have had the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies and I accept that the Government have done much for the disabled. I do not take the view that was adopted by previous Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The new management of the official Opposition seems much more reasonable and more sensitive to the real problems. At the same time, the Government must make clear what they believe can be done in future. Surely this is not the end of the story.
Once the new system is up and running we may have time to reflect on what benefits are available, and will continue to be available, as a result of using quasi-independent trustees. I certainly recognise the courage of the Disablement Income Group and others who decided to interpose themselves between the needs of disabled people and the Treasury. It was a brave decision to take and they were vindicated for doing so.
The discretion available to the trustees of the ILF was innovative and the power was used with great skill in sorting out some of the problems and dealing with some of the tight budget constraints that appeared latterly. What experience have we gained from that? Are not we in danger

of throwing some of it away in the changes. I hope that the Department will carefully consider the lessons that can be learnt from that combination of independent trustees' discretion and judgment and all the other matters that have formed the system to date. I hope that proper analysis will be carried out so that we can have the benefit of that experience.
I think that the mood of the House reflects my impression that the concept of an independent living fund has been ever so slightly marginalised—indeed, not ever so slightly; it has been marginalised—in the changes, which is a matter of some regret.
A number of administrative questions need to be answered. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon touched on many of them, so I shall not reiterate them. Cash in hand is absolutely crucial. The Government's position in constraining the assistance able to be deployed by the new funds to those of working age is a bit mean-minded. The parliamentary questions to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred struck me as being good value for money—£2 million, rising to £5 million or £6 million over a number of years. The Government have not yet explained adequately why they have rejected that.
What discussions have there been with local authorities? There was some banter earlier when that point was raised. The Minister plays an old and mean hand at the Dispatch Box and tries to soothe our worries. However, there are real concerns about the consultations that have been undertaken and those that have still to be undertaken, as well as about the shortness of time in which to get the system properly up and running by the date set by the Government.
In an intervention I asked the Minister about the process of reviews and appeals. It is my belief that the Government will end up in court in a short time because some of the elements of discretion that will be exercised by local authorities will put them at the wrong end of judicial reviews in high courts throughout the land. That does not make for good law. We, as legislators, should be absolutely certain that we do not leave the courts to take in our dirty washing because we are not doing our job properly.
Other hon. Members have already called for an assurance that payments will not be delayed by the changeover in the system. We do not want any of the chaos that occurred with the disability living allowance and disability working allowance for all the reasons that the Government have given. We must not put people through that again.
When will we know the identity of the trustees who will share the burden of such a heavy responsibility? I can think of no reason why those who have gained experience with the independent living fund should not be invited to serve on the new bodies.
Who will have access to the trust deeds for the new bodies? They were published on 25 February, but I have not yet studied them to the extent that they have been studied by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. I assume that they are generally available to Members of Parliament, but will they be made readily accessible to those outside this place so that they can study them and ask questions about them?
When will the regulations—if there are to be any—be introduced? Perhaps the trust deeds will stand by themselves, which would be a strange parliamentary


procedure. The guidelines and implementation of the funds would be described, constrained and set out in trust deeds rather than in statutory instruments. If there are to be statutory instruments, will they be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure? Will they deal with the procedures for review or repeal?
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon dealt adequately with the point about payment in cash directly to the recipient.
I welcome the Motability scheme as a beneficial scheme for those with access to it. However, I am puzzled why the administrative expenses should be so high. If my researchers are right, the scheme cost £1·8 million in administration in 1992–93 for an equipment fund of only £1 million. I accept that increases have been admitted during the course of the changes, and the Minister referred to them in passing—£2 million administration costs for a £2 million equipment fund. Nevertheless, I do not understand why it should cost that amount to administer what I accept is a beneficial scheme but which involves a relatively small amount of money.
What estimates have been made of attrition rates? The Government are being a little optimistic about new people gaining access to what is, in effect, a cash-limited fund. What has been the experience with the rate of deaths among those who have benefited from the fund? It is important to know what provision has been made for increased access by new applicants.
The question of ring fencing has a particular application north of the border. Although there was ring fencing in the community care budget south of the border in England and Wales, the community care budget for Scotland has not been ring fenced. I want an assurance that the Bill and the provisions of the community care budget will not have a knock-on application in Scotland after 1 April.
I want to raise a point about resources and the £500 ceiling. I understand that there are two component parts to that. I cannot think of any way to index that figure. I may be wrong because I have not studied the trust deeds to the same extent as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. However, it is an important question and we need to know how the Government intend to achieve some level of indexation for the middle to long term.
The sum of £4 million that has been set for the extension fund is not enough. I need to be convinced that it is anything like enough money to meet the demands on the fund. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I referred earlier to an extension to those aged over 65. That matter should be reviewed.
The measures contained in the Bill should have been brought to the House a long time ago. The process of consideration has not been properly thought through. The consultation, such as there has been, with interested parties has been inadequate. The level of resources provided in the Bill appears to be inadequate for the tasks set out. If the needs of those with severe disabilities are to be properly catered for, I fear that the House will need to return to these matters before very long.

Mr. David Willetts: I welcome being able to participate in a debate on legislation in which a clear manifesto pledge is implemented so effectively. The Bill implements this pledge in the Conservative party manifesto:
The Independent Living Fund has proved a great success in giving severely disabled people an opportunity to live in the community. We are committed to maintaining a fund which supports the most severely disabled people.
The Bill is a distinctive and subtle mixture of continuity and change, which is just what one would expect of the Government. In particular, the continuity comes from the name of the new fund.
An enormous amount of help is now provided to disabled people. The total benefits budget is approximately £15 billion—an increase three times the rate of inflation since 1979. One difficulty in debating that budget and its enormous increase is that many people outside the House think all that expenditure goes on the severely disabled. They do not appreciate that under some of the definitions of disability with which we now work—for example, in the recent work of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—people with relatively modest impairments to movement count as disabled. There are 6 million disabled people in this country and I am sure that there are right hon. and hon. Members who would count as disabled under some definitions now in use.
None of the uncertainties about what exactly constitutes a disability affects the Bill, because it undoubtedly deals with the severely disabled—those whose disabilities are much more severe than those suffered by people oh, for example, invalidity benefit.
The Bill can be traced back to the social security benefit review of the mid 1980s and the enormous pressure under which the Government found themselves to simplify the then supplementary benefit rules. I vividly remember the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), coming to a meeting bearing two volumes of supplementary benefit regulations and saying that the system was collapsing under the weight of its own complexity. He argued that it was impossible to expect social security office staff to administer a system that had become so intricate.
The pressure therefore was for simplification, so the Government simplified the system to create income support, which is in many ways superior to the scheme that it replaced. But the Government found that many of the specific areas of help provided under supplementary benefit could not be ignored. The domestic care addition, then paid to 6,000 severely disabled people, was a classic example. While moving from a complicated system to a much simpler one, the Government found themselves having to introduce a new element of discretionary help for the severely disabled to replace the old domestic care addition. Hence, the independent living fund was born.
There has been almost universal praise for the discretionary ILF in today's debate, but it struck me that no one referred to the social fund. The social fund was a parallel initiative in providing discretionary help for people in particular need. It had the same origins—it, too, was an attempt to keep the new income support system simpler than the previous supplementary benefit system. I hope that hon. Members who praised discretion today will not, next time that the House debates the social fund, give


sermons on how the discretionary distribution of public money somehow contradicts a fundamental principle of the British constitution.

Mr. Frank Field: We have been intervening because we are burying the independent living fund in all but name. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that there should be a Bill to do the same to the social fund?

Mr. Willetts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I support the principle of the social fund. With the establishment of the two new funds under the Bill—the extension fund to cover people receiving payments under the old arrangements and the 1993 fund—there will still be an element of discretion in the system. I respect the hon. Gentleman's comment, but it does not address the fundamental point—if discretion is acceptable in respect of the severely disabled, why is it not acceptable elsewhere in the system? The arrangements make a reasonable attempt at providing a framework of general rules by which public money is distributed and for a reasonable element of discretion.
There is a second paradox in some of the arguments made today, particularly by Opposition Members. A perennial dilemma in public policy is the way in which central Government should handle their relationship with local government. We are used to hearing the criticism that ours is a centralising Government taking discretion away from local authorities and denying them the freedom that they need. Yet hon. Members who happily make that criticism are also among those who plead most vigorously for severe limits on local authority discretion when it comes to the new community care proposals that are to be implemented in April.
The hon. Members who argue that ours is a centralising Government are the ones who are the most vociferous in pressing for ring-fenced grants and specific central Government limits on the action that local authorities may take. When it comes to practical implementation, those hon. Members' commitment to local authority discretion seems rather wanting.
We heard today from members of Labour's Front Bench the ultimate logical absurdity, by way of a demand for a ring fence within a ring fence. Labour is not happy with the overall ring fencing of £565 million for central Government grants to local authorities to spend on community care, but wants ring fences within that—for specific assistance previously covered by the ILF. The only business that would thrive under that system would be fence making.
There must come a point at which, if we are serious about giving a role to local authorities, they must have the discretion to exercise their judgment in distributing the enormous sum of public resources available to them.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman object to the concept of extending local authority power by allowing authorities the discretion to make cash grants in the circumstances of particularly difficult cases? The Minister seemed to be saying—I hope that I am not misrepresenting him—that local authorities are too busy and that administrative difficulties might be created. He gave that as the reason for not allowing such discretion. I hope that the principle of such an extension might appeal to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willetts: I will refer to that aspect later. The hon. Gentleman's instincts are good in respect of policies that particularly tempt me.
Like many hon. Members who spoke today, I have been much influenced by the work of Jenny Morris of the Rowntree trust, who has undertaken valuable and practical research into the assistance that disabled people particularly want. We all know the buzz words of independence and flexibility. While many working in social service departments recite those words as mantras, research by Jenny Morris and others show that independence and flexibility are still not necessarily the experience of the severely disabled.
I would like to set out some of the lessons of the research about what flexibility and independence really mean. One thing that we have learnt is that receiving domiciliary care in one's own house is not always the best route to flexibility and independence. I fear that we may be going from one extreme to another. Everyone is now supposed to be against institutional care in favour of care that enables people to live in their own homes, but one's own home should not become a prison. People should not be given care only if they stay within those four walls; it should be possible to provide a care package that allows people the freedom to leave their own home from time to time. One of the strong messages of the research is that domiciliary care must not become a sophisticated and up-market form of imprisonment.
It is also important that people requiring care should be able to exercise the maximum choice in the care they receive. One of the anxieties that many Conservative Members have had over the past few months—as Ministers know—is that some local authorities will succumb to what must be a conflict of interests. They are the purchasers of care, yet many are also providers of care. They will be strongly tempted to push as much as possible of their budget in the direction of their own employees. That is why I welcome the 85 per cent. rule, which will require local authorities to spend a very high proportion of the extra grant that they will receive from Government on private providers. There is no reason why services for groups such as the severely disabled should be provided by public sector employees.

Mr. Frank Field: For the first time that I have heard him speak in the House, the hon. Gentleman seems to be caught in a time warp. It is perfectly proper for him and his hon. Friends to point out that it is wrong for Opposition Members to be committed to the idea that public provision must be better than private provision. Is he not making a similar error by saying that the Bill marks an advance because it will tie local authorities to providing 85 per cent. of care through the private sector? Is not the big divide one of freedom? The Bill marks a failure in our attempts to protect and extend the freedom of the individual. It marks an increase in paternalism: no matter what skills the hon. Gentleman deploys in presenting his case, that is what is happening. Whether it is local authority or private provision is a secondary issue; it is less important than allowing people to choose for themselves.

Mr. Willetts: The fundamental dilemma presented by the Bill is whether we believe in community care. Despite the attempts of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I was not persuaded of the possibility of combining the previous arrangements for the independent


living fund with the principles of community care, which give local authorities the lead responsibility for the assessment of the needs and means of people who come within the categories laid down by community care policy. The ILF was established before the implementation of community care policy. It strikes me as unfair on local authorities—and, indeed, inconsistent—to say, "We back community care and believe in this discretion for local authorities, but we are not prepared to give them such a role in regard to severely disabled people." That is the dilemma on which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Opposition Front Bench seem to be impaled.

Mr. Field: It is a simple point. I believe that the lead authority should, wherever possible, be the individual; the hon. Gentleman clearly does not.

Mr. Willetts: I entirely accept that and I was about to deal with it in my speech. The individual—a person requiring care—should be empowered by the policies, if I may use an expression that originated with the new right in America and has now been picked up by the Labour Front Bench. I do not believe that community care makes such empowerment impossible.

Mr. Sheerman: Let me add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The empowerment of the individual is what is important. Community care is not such an ideologically iron construct that we cannot build into it the idea on which it was originally based. Originally, it was seen by both sides of the political spectrum as the ability to enhance the development of individual potential. We should subscribe to that concept, but we should apply a criterion—does community care achieve what it was originally intended to achieve? Sometimes it does, in the Government's terms; sometimes it does not. In the present instance, Labour is saying that it does not.

Mr. Willetts: Two different points are being made and Opposition Members are in danger of confusing them. I accept that community care reforms must be implemented in such a way as to give maximum choice and power of decision to those receiving care. That is fundamental and I will come to it later in my speech. I do not think, however, that it follows that community care can be provided only for certain groups and that the ILF must be kept on its old basis for severely disabled people.
It seems to me that the sensible approach is to ask how the new community care reforms can be introduced in a way that maximises power of the individual. We cannot say that the community care policy applies to some groups, while the old ILF structure applies to other groups.

Mr. Sheerman: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who would agree with him about empowerment through community care, but says that that can be facilitated by giving local authority social services departments the ability to pay cash to individual disabled people?

Mr. Willetts: I have already been pressed about that and I shall return to it in a moment. My hon. Friend the

Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has been sadly absent this evening, given the contributions on the subject that he has made in the past.
I accept that our objective is to maximise the independence of the recipient of community care. We should draw on the research that has been done and on our own conversations with severerly disabled people.

Mr. Barry Porter: I hesitate to intervene when all the experts on compassion are gathered together, but I am rather puzzled. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and one or two others have suggested that the Bill is Treasury driven. I am present only because I do not see why the severely disabled should be subject to a flint-hearted Treasury if that can possibly be avoided. How what money there is should be distributed, whether it should be cash limited and whether local authorities should do this, that or the other is a matter for the hon. Members who have appointed themselves as experts.
Is this a Treasury-dominated Bill? Is it an attempt to save money, or is it an attempt to launch a better and more organised system, whereby the severely disabled are treated in the way in which human beings should treat them?

Mr. Willetts: I must confess that, when I hear that the Bill is supposedly Treasury driven, I experience a mixture of emotions, having been a Treasury official for six years. I am not sure whether a Treasury driven Bill is necessarily as terrible as some hon. Members clearly assume it to be. If "Treasury driven" means that a Bill applies sensible criteria to the spending of taxpayers' money—even in regard to social security and benefits for disabled people—I very much hope that this Bill is Treasury driven. I also believe, however, that, within the community care arrangements it is perfectly possible to pursue the crucial objective shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the recipients of care have the maximum power and ability to decide when it comes to the pattern of care that they receive.
There are clear lessons to be learnt from the work of researchers such as Jenny Morris and from our own practical experience of the right and wrong ways of delivering care to those who need it. One of the obvious practical messages is that recipients of care do not like their living rooms becoming like Victoria station. They do not like a host of public employees employed by different services thinking that they have a God-given right to knock on the front door, come in and check on the occupants or deliver some distinct service. It is important to have a limited range of contacts, with one or two people providing a variety of services. For example, I regret the tendency for home helps to be called home carers and to cease to provide the range of services that they provided when they were home helps. That is a perennial complaint by recipients of care services. There is no party element in that comment; the observation could be made by any hon. Member. There is no reason why the proposed community care changes should not help us to address that problem.
Another important matter is the power of disabled people to employ the care that they choose. That has been touched upon in the comments about cash. I am struck by the conversion of Opposition Members to the cause of private employment contracts and the cash nexus. I was brought up when the ultimate hero of the welfare state


among Opposition Members was Richard Titmuss, who wrote about the gift relationship in blood transfusions and who thought that bringing the cash nexus of private contractual arrangements into the provision of welfare was corrupting and somehow removed the overriding ethical purpose of the welfare state. Several Opposition Members called for the direct payment of cash, the direct employment of providers and clear contractual arrangements. That represents an extraordinary transformation of thinking about the welfare state. Conservative Members greatly welcome that.

Mr. Sheerman: I was taught by Richard Titmuss at one time. If anything, he was almost the ultimate pragmatist. He said that if a concept worked for the individual and delivered the service it was ideologically sound. If it did not work and did not deliver, another way should be found. To tar Richard Titmuss with a narrow-sighted ideological view of the world is a Treasury reaction and it is not right.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman, who sat at the feet of Titmuss, will agree, I hope, that Titmuss's definition of the core of the welfare state, its ethical function, was incompatible with private contractual arrangements. There has now been a plea for such arrangements. I shall now discharge my earlier promise to address the issue of whether local authorities should be allowed to give cash to people who need care.
I understand that for local authorities suddenly to become issuers of large numbers of giro cheques would represent a dramatic change in their functions. In effect, they would become branches of the Department of Social Security and instead of changing the way in which care was allocated the Department would be reinvented. However, two arrangements are widely used to avoid the legal obstacle to local authorities giving out cash and they achieve the flexibility that we should like to see. One such arrangement is for local authorities to give money to charities which would then pass it on to people who are in need of care. The other arrangement is for trusts to be established specifically for the purpose of helping severely disabled people. Perhaps the Minister can explain the Government's view of such arrangements, which seem to enable crucial flexibility to be maintained without breaking the requirement that local authorities do not simply hand £10 notes over the counter.
I have spoken about the background to the measure and about the need for independence and flexibility and what those great terms mean in practice. Finally, let me set out two grounds for optimism about the policy on disabled people. We often address the difficulties, but we do not always remind ourselves of fundamental changes that seem to bring great hope to disabled people. The first such change is technological advance. Severely disabled people have benefited greatly from rapid technological change since the war. That has made it possible for them to receive much more assistance and to enjoy much more mobility and flexibility in meeting their personal needs. Of course, it also makes it possible for increasing numbers of disabled people, even those who are severely disabled, to hold down jobs. Advances in computer processes have enabled people with little control over their limbs to carry out remunerative employment. Therefore, I especially welcome the disability working allowance, which is an attempt to encourage the future employment of disabled

people. I hope that it will grow from its rather modest beginnings as more and more disabled people hold down paying jobs.
The other cause for optimism is the changing pattern of wealth and income in our society. One of the fundamental changes is that older people are becoming richer. That change is no surprise because in a successful free market economy people acquire assets during their working lives and run them down in retirement. A high proportion of disabled people are older citizens: many of them are over 60.
We speak about disabled people and about the extraordinary transformation in the financial circumstances of retired people, but rarely do we bring the two together and recognise that some retired disabled people hold assets and enjoy the ownership of their home, a telephone, television set and central heating—the sort of benefits that everyone now expects. That increase in wealth and income which is a feature of today's retired population has improved the prospects of many disabled people because they are disproportionately represented in the retired population.
I welcome the Bill and the Government's extraordinary record in trebling the amount spent on disability benefits. Their record surpasses that of any Government this century. I hope that the Minister will address the specific issues that I have raised.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will forgive me if I do not follow closely on what he said. He made an interesting speech and even had the audacity to quote from the Conservative party manifesto. Anyone who does that is bound to cheer up our proceedings.
I pay tribute to the work of the independent living fund during its five years of existence. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that providing the support necessary to enable disabled people to live in their own homes rather than in residential care is a worthwhile aim. The ILF has carried out its function with great success. The fund has been administered with great skill by the trustees and has become an invaluable source of help for disabled people. About 21,000 or 22,000 disabled people receive help from the fund, and I and many of my hon. Friends wish that the Government had had the wisdom to keep the fund functioning instead of winding it up in this manner.
It has also been a good deal for the taxpayer, a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). Residential care is very expensive. The small amount of taxpayers' money used for grants from the independent living fund has saved the Exchequer money in the long run. The average ILF grant is about £106 a week. I cannot think of a residential home that could provide care for that sum of money.
Before I discuss the new arrangements, I must say a word about the manner in which the ILF was closed to new applicants. The use of a parliamentary answer on 24 November to announce the closure of the fund at midnight the very next day left many disabled people in the lurch. How could anyone be expected to find out about the closure of the fund and organise the submission of an application within 24 hours? Such a deadline might have been more acceptable had it been announced well in advance, but that was not the case. There was no


consultation whatsoever with organisations representing the disabled and no warning was given that the door would slam shut in this manner.
The plight of those trying to submit new applications was made worse by the fiasco over the disability living allowance. The condition that applicants had to be in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance or the care component of DLA caused great difficulties for potential applicants because of the mess over the administration of those benefits. I am sure that all hon. Members have received as many letters about this as I have.
Since 25 November, disabled people who would have applied to the ILF have had nowhere to turn. Given the success of the ILF, acknowledged by the Government in the need for the successor arrangements dealt with by the Bill, what justification can the Minister have for cutting off all help between the end of November and April? Was this not a callous act where the money saved was far outweighed by the hardship caused to disabled people?
The new arrangements themselves give great cause for concern. The Government have cut the scope of the new independent living (1993) fund. The new fund is intended to deal with only 1,500 applications per annum and it is being restricted to people of working age. Common sense tells us that the age restriction is a major cut in provision, as the elderly disabled relied heavily on the ILF; 34 per cent. of the ILF's caseload were over the age of 65.
The Minister said in reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the cost of extending the new fund to cover people over retirement age would be only £2 million next year. Will the Minister reconsider this restriction, given the small amount of money saved by it? Again it seems as though the Government are set to cause great distress to the elderly disabled in order to save a very small amount of money. In my view, it is simply not worth it. I hope that the Government will think again.
The Minister made great play of his view that most of the sort of help provided by the ILF will be provided by local authorities, following the introduction of the new community care arrangements. The Secretary of State for Health did indeed announce extra funds for local authorities for this purpose, totalling £26 million next year. However, the fact is that, although overall local authority budgets for community care are ring fenced in England and Wales, the extra money announced by the Secretary of State for ILF purposes is not. Is there not a great danger, given the pressures that local authorities are already under over community care, that this money will be swallowed up in the general community care pot?
It is not only the total amount of money available that causes concern; the restrictions upon its use also cause concern. As I understand it, the criteria for help from the new ILF are that, where the costs of independent living for a disabled person exceed the costs of residential care, he or she will be able to apply for help from the fund. That will happen only after the local authority has assessed the needs of the person concerned. It would therefore appear that independent application to the new ILF is excluded. Instead, everyone will have to go through the local authority.
In addition, the help provided by councils will have to be in kind—I think that it was described by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) as services. They will not be allowed to give cash grants in the way that the ILF did. The only group who will now get cash grants will be those for whom the costs of living in their own home exceed those of residential care. That is, surely, a retrograde step which will deprive many disabled people of the freedom of choice that they were able to exert under the ILF.
Disabled persons who received help from the ILF could, under the old arrangements, use a cash grant from the ILF to organise their care in the manner best suited to them. How can that be the case under the new arrangements, when most people will not receive help in the form of cash grants? Help in kind is inevitably less flexible than help with cash, over which the recipient has control. I do not understand the Government's thinking, since they constantly claim that choice is a hallmark of their administration.
Are the Government saying that disabled people are unfit to exert free choice? Can they not be trusted to obtain the best help, with the resources available to them? I am confident that local authorities will do their best to administer the new arrangements with the greatest sensitivity, but it is difficult to see how they can match the freedom conferred by the cash grants allocated under the old ILF.
All these new arrangements will need to be carefully monitored. I hope that they live up to the claims that the Minister and others have made for them. I have made it clear that I should have preferred the ILF to continue. Given the Government's determination to end it, I hope that the new arrangements can at least be amended. The least that should happen is that the exclusion of those over retirement age should be rescinded and that help from the new fund should be extended to them.
The Government should also think again about the funding arrangements. I realise that there are pressures upon public spending, but it will be a dark day indeed when we have to start economising on help for the most vulnerable people in society. I hope that the Minister will address some of these points when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Sheerman: As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm this when he winds up the debate—the law in Scotland on cash payments is different. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is now leaving the Chamber and who intervened several times during my speech, should appreciate that, as I understand it, the law in Scotland is different and that cash payments by local authority social services departments to adults are permissible. Can my hon. Friend and the Minister clarify why that should be so? It means that some bold and interesting experiments that could not be carried out in England could be carried out in Scotland.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He is right to say that the situation in Scotland is different. We would argue, of course, that in Scotland we do it better. Therefore, we are always willing to give advice on these matters. If, therefore, the Minister wishes to contact me about them, I shall gladly give him advice.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this excellent debate. I apologise for being unable to attend all of the debate because of developments in Bolton where, tragically, a doctor died from AIDS but did not disclose his condition while treating patients. His name had not been revealed by the health authority, and I have been pressing all day for it to be revealed so that my constituents can at least allay their anxieties on that score. The development of AIDS is another matter for which there may be a need for more care in the community.
I especially enjoyed the opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I should like to place on record how excellent his personal contribution has been. It is fair to say that the independent living fund was his creature. From small beginnings with a £1 million budget, the fund expanded to a budget of more than £100 million and is a good example of how there is nothing so permanent as that which is regarded as a temporary arrangement. I believe that the arrangements now being discussed will prove to be just as important as my right hon. Friend's 1988 initiative.
In 1988, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) condemned the fund by saying that it would be seen as an abdication of the Government's responsibility. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, one of the remarkable features of the debate is the coming together of thinking among the parties. The Labour party is now endorsing the thoughts of Conservative Members, which goes to show that the original thinking behind care in the community is now being done by Conservative Members as much as it ever was by Labour Members.

Mr. Sheerman: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an entrepreneur. We know each other in a different guise as co-trustees of the National Children's Centre, which is based in my constituency. It was not the Government who were the driving force behind the independent living fund but the disabled people themselves and what they wanted. If the hon. Gentleman saw a going concern, which was enormously successful and had been running with great acclaim from the consumers for five years, would he, as an entrepreneur, wind it up and start something completely different?

Mr. Thurnham: Firstly, on 1 April new arrangements for community care will come into force. They did not exist when the ILF was set up. Secondly, we have set up two funds which will continue to provide for existing recipients of the benefit and for the topping-up of additional requirements. I am sorry that I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but perhaps he could explain what he is driving at.

Mr. Sheerman: I gave full weight to the Minister's contribution in setting up the ILF, although I also said that it went far beyond his expectations. It was set up because of pressure to fill a void or gap in social security provisions because of changes in the over-arching laws on social security. We were arguing that, these days, such provision should be driven by what the disability lobby and disabled people want. The matter should not be put into the hands of social services departments or other people who will act as a barrier between those who know

what they want and a decent independent living fund, which can respond quickly and without intermediaries to existing need.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has not enlightened me. I should have thought that he would favour the new arrangements for community care, the responsibilities that have been given to local authorities and, now, the top-up. I think that he will agree that, when one is dealing with the most disabled people, one source should not be regarded as the sole provider of all care. It is a matter of partnership and if additional people can be involved, so much the better. I intend later to cite the cases of one or two constituents who feel that the partnership still needs developing because the carers are contributing the most.
We are setting up the independent living fund anew, with two new arrangements. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that as an additional provision to those of the local authorities'.

Mr. Sheerman: We shall have a system which will he less well funded. To get help, a disabled person will now have to go through what the Minister called "gatekeepers". The hon. Gentleman was here for the Minister's speech although he did not hear mine so he will have heard that the gatekeepers will be the local authorities and the new independent living fund, which will send their own social workers to make an assessment. The DSS will also have a role. There will be a new bureaucracy instead of the direct relationship which, knowing the hon. Gentleman, I should have expected him to applaud. There will no longer be a direct relationship between the disabled person and the independent living fund. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the Bill will put three intermediaries or gatekeepers into that relationship. Why on earth should disabled people want gatekeepers between them and their express needs and desires?

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman begs the question of how well local authorities will carry out their duties. Under care in the community, it is clear that their duty is to assess what the needs are and then establish how they are to be met. If there is to be an additional provision, I welcome it. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman suggests that one should ignore local authorities' responsibilities. They are important responsibilities and cause me great concern in case they are not exercised correctly.
In the past few days I received a letter from a family in Bolton. It runs to nine pages so I shall not read it all. It is from Mr. and Mrs. Whiteley who describe eight years of the most intolerable incompetence by the local authority, as a result of which Mr. Whiteley lost his job and the family lost their house while the council said first one thing and then another about help in caring for their son Andrew. He is now nine years old and suffers from spina bifida. Caring for him is more than Mrs. Whiteley can manage on her own. The local authority has messed this family about so much that Mr. Whiteley had to give up his job, and the family have lost their house, because of the administrative confusion.
It is most important that local authorities carry out their responsibilities properly. In that respect, the Government should be congratulated on the provisions that they have made. There has been a substantial increase


in financial provision, with a trebling of the money for care, which has increased from £5 million to £15 million in real terms over the past 14 years. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of people provided with care. When the Labour party was in power only 360,000 people received help with the cost of care or mobility. Now, 2 million people receive such help.
Although there have been criticisms of the way in which the benefit agencies introduced the new allowances, substantial numbers of people have benefited and in a shorter time scale than when the Opposition introduced the mobility allowance and took four years to deal with far fewer people.
I have just received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald—Iain and Wendy—of 25 Rose Lea, Harwood. They say that the new arrangements are working well. Mr. MacDonald wrote to appeal about one matter relating to the disability living allowance but says:
I am, however, completely satisfied with everything else. Thanks to your intervention my case has been handled personally by Mrs. Pauline Padley, Customer Service Section, Invalid Care Allowance Unit, D.S.S. Palatine House, Lancaster Rd., Preston. I cannot stress too highly the sympathy, help and understanding she has given to myself and my wife. She is a credit to herself and her Department…if the time could be found…to thank her I know how much it would be appreciated. It is the only gesture I can think of that would be in keeping with her continuing efforts on our behalf.
I quote that letter as an example of how well the Government are making the new arrangements work. In this case, the invalid care allowance is the important benefit which the MacDonalds are receiving.
The calls for additional top-up funds through the new independent living funds will become greater. Just as the original fund grew from £1 million to £100 million—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—the demand on the new funds will be substantial and will grow.
I refer to a letter that I have received from Mrs. Cummings of 280, Hough Fold Way, in my constituency. She cares for her adult son David who is severely handicapped and she points out that the funds that she gets at present from the independent living fund are supposed to be sufficient for 21 hours of care per week. She finds that the costs are greater than the amount that is being provided by the ILF, leaving her out of pocket. Each month, the ILF provides her with £322, but each month she actually pays out more than that and receives less care than the 21 hours that she is supposed to be able to receive. She would like the ILF to have greater funds for her requirements. She would also like additional funds to cover respite care so that she and her husband could have a holiday. The funds that they have at present are not sufficient to provide for that.
Mrs. Cummings gives the example of how Crossroads care committee in Bolton has arranged to fund one family with £8·50 a week to buy in care at the weekends. However, Crossroads charges £8·90 per hour at weekends. So the amount provided is not enough for one hour's care. She also refers to other recipients of care from the Crossroads fund who do not receive enough to meet requirements. She gives the example of a family who are allowed £200 a month by the ILF, although the amount

required for the number of hours of care specified would come to at least £240 on current costing. Again, she presses for further help in that respect.
Mrs. Cummings then points to the extra costs that arise when people suffer from incontinence. I should like the Government to consider the better provision of incontinence aids because the costs of such aids can lead to substantial extra charges for individual carers who find that the supply of aids as arranged at the moment is insufficient for their needs.
I am delighted to say that a new respite care centre is being set up in Bolton through the voluntary arrangements worked out with the Bolton Handicapped Action Group. I commend its work to the Minister and I hope that he will have an opportunity to come to see its work. The group has set up in partnership with the health authority and now, I believe, with the local authority to provide a package of care. It will manage the new respite care centre which, I am delighted to say, will be called Grosvenor House, thanks to the support of the Duke of Westminster who was happy to lend his name to the initiative.
I confirm that the way in which the Government have provided additional funds will give the flexibility that is so important with care and especially for those who are the most severely disabled. At present many people's care packages cost less than £500 a week because of the uncosted input of the individual carers. There is anxiety about the possibility that if carers cannot contribute fully and if care has to be bought in, sufficient care could not be provided for £500 a week. That raises the threat of the person who is disabled being moved into a home against the family's wishes. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider that aspect and if he would give assurances that the future level of care limits will be reviewed so that people need not fear that the one for whom they care so lovingly may be moved into a home that is not of his or her choice when the family would prefer that person to be able to live at home if funds were available.
I commend the Bill to the House and I congratulate the Government on their record of care for the disabled. I look forward to a continuing growth of the funds for people with disabilities. Although the Opposition have had thoughts on these issues, when in power they failed to fund the requirements of the social services budgets. Only this Government have been able to find the money to provide for such a substantial increase as we have seen to date and which, I am sure, will continue.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: As we near the end of the debate, it is important to recognise that we have heard many good speeches and two very brave speeches. As has been said, one such speech was made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). He quoted from the Conservative party manifesto and thus nailed once and for all the vicious rumour among the Opposition that all the copies had been collected up, ring fenced and burnt. It is unfortunate that he did not have time to quote other pledges in the manifesto so that we could debate them, too.
The other brave speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Waxing strongly—rightly so—about Motability, he compared the numbers benefiting from Motability with the size of the Chinese army. To have made that


comparison on the day that the Foreign Secretary made a statement about Hong Kong was brave. Motability may soon have its finest hour. The hidden message in my right hon. Friend's speech will not be lost on military strategists in Beijing.
The key words today have been cash, care and choice. We are at the interesting stage of looking more rigorously at the association and interface between care and cash and, therefore, at the interface between two Government Departments—the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. As a new Member of Parliament, I am struck by the fact that one cannot ask parliamentary questions about how one Department co-ordinates with another, yet in many respects today we have been discussing that very theme. Increasingly in social policy we are dealing with matters that cut across departmental boundaries and we need to get the discussions right in this area.
We are also approaching 1 April when principles, policies and philosophies about community care will be tested by realities and by practice. The timing of this debate is good. There is widespread agreement that the goals of community care are right and that they are goals that we all want to be implemented. The White Paper "Caring for People" said that the components of community care included
services that respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals and their carers; services that allow a range of options for consumers…services that concentrate on those with the greatest needs.
In discussing the ILF, we are often talking about those with the very greatest needs.
All the objectives are excellent, but we must now ask tough questions about the practice. I hope that we shall do that during the rest of today's debate and in Committee. There is a sense in which, as we approach 1 April, the waters of community care are becoming murkier As we move towards the end of March, there is a sense that we are moving towards, not greater clarity, but greater confusion. In certain letters that have been leaked, although not always published, we are hearing more about costs and less about choice. I worry about that.
This is an appropriate opportunity to ask Ministers some clear questions. Is there now a limit on what social services authorities can spend on those with disabilities? Is the £200 limit now a clear limit?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): indicated dissent.

Mr. Wicks: The Minister shakes his head, and I am pleased about that. I should like clarification of that point. In the social work press and more widely, there is concern that Government officials and the social services inspectorate are now warning local authorities that they should not offer too much to clients. The Minister may want to correct this. A headline in The Independent—which never tells a lie—on 12 March read:
Councils told to 'hide' care services shortfall".
The article said:
The Department of Health has advised social services directors to keep secret the services they lack after community care comes into force next month.
In a letter, an official says that they should not give people a list of nursing and community care services which they ideally need, in case the council is sued for maladministration if it cannot afford to provide the service.
Given that we are all agreed on the objective of openness and the need to bring carers and the cared for

into the discussion about care packages, how can such secrecy be part of the deal? The Minister may want to shake his head again. I hope that, in conjunction with his colleagues from another Department, he will be able to tell us that social service authorities are not being cash-limited in that way. If they are, there can be no effective and honest partnership between those needing care and the care providers, which means that the objectives will not be fulfilled in practice.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the £500 limit. If we are to judge community care partly by the extent of its impact on people in the greatest need, the question of the £500 cash limit, which will inhibit proper community care, is crucial. I hope that the Minister will say something clear and reassuring about his willingness to consider amendments in Committee. I understand that, at present, fewer than 1 per cent. of those benefiting from ILF money will be affected. I take that point. Nevertheless, that represents a significant number of individuals.
Moreover, I think—and I shall be happy to be corrected—that, in practice, the £500 is a larger sum than is implied because, under the old ILF scheme, one could also get support from social services. If that is now being costed at up to £200, more than 1 per cent. may be caught by the care trap. I seek clarification on that.
Whether we are talking about one or two people or several dozens or more, the crucial question must be what will happen in practice. What happens if the care package that is devised costs £600 or £700, as it may well do in the most extreme cases? Will that person have to go into institutional care? Some say that they will have to he dragged screaming and kicking if that is the case. Again, the Minister shakes his head.
What happens if the social services department cannot afford to spend any more under the cash limit, given that the ILF regulations specify that the figure must be no more than £500? I am told that we are talking here about some of the most serious cases of paralysis—people who have broken their neck in a road accident and those suffering from multiple sclerosis or are in the more advanced stages of motor neurone disease.
To those listening to the debate, £500 may seem a great deal of money—and it is a great deal of money—but a great deal of money is needed if someone who requires round-the-clock care is to be cared for in the community rather than in residential care, which is the principle to which we all aspire.
As has been said, there is, in any case, no sense in asking a person to move into residential care if that will cost more than a package that could be devised. The individuals affected may be few: it would be nice to have some estimates. In any case, what happens to them will be a key test of the Bill, and we need to consider that both today and in Committee.
I am worried that what should be a new dawn for community care is fast becoming a debate about residential care not only as regards the ILF and its cash limit per person but in different ways. Certainly, all the initial controversy following all fools' day will be about residential care—about whether people are having their costs paid and about the concerns of home owners.
I have another fear. As a result of the Government's ideology and dogmatism, social service authorities will have to spend 85 per cent. of the new money on the so-called independent sector, which is predominantly,


although not exclusively, the private sector. The private sector is mainly—again, not exclusively—in the business of institutional care, so that will pull the money towards institutional rather than community care. If, as we have said today, the £500 limit stays and we cannot shift the Government on it—I hope that we can—some critical cases, who, despite terrible disabilities, live in the community and often thrive in and contribute to it, may be moved into institutional care.
Moreover, there must surely still be many people suffering from terrible conditions who are in institutional care but who, in the right circumstances and given the right opportunities, cash and care—and, of course, the choice—could come back into the community and live more fully than they do at present. Let us not forget that group. We need to think how we can enable them to come back into the community if they want to. Can they do that with a package of care costing £500? Some will need more, and that is an important point.
The theme of cash or care and the association between the two Government Departments may be a more fundamental theme for the future than this small but important measure concerning the ILF suggests. Our society is faced with important questions about the costs of disability and aging. We know that the Bill does not cater for those over 65, but we have to consider the costs of disability and aging and who should meet them.
In future, in some of our mainstream debates about social security, and not least about pensions, we should ask about both the private sector—occupational pension schemes—and the public sector—the national insurance Fund—and determine whether the risks against which we should insure ourselves include the risk of the need for intensive care as well as pensions. If we discuss pensions on one day and community care on another, we start to make great mistakes about the risks facing us in our later life and the different ways in which we should insure against them.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am glad that the Government have found time for it in their programme. At a time when many of our attentions seem to he diverted overseas, it is nice to find time to consider matters rather closer to home which have a direct bearing on many of our constituents' daily lives.
The Government's priorities for disabled people can be categorised in three ways: first, a desire to enable people to live as independently as possible; secondly, a commitment to target more resources on people who are disabled in a way that recognises their particular needs; and, thirdly, a commitment to look at their wider entitlement and interests to enable them to play as full a role as possible in society. The Bill addresses all three.
Hon. Members have referred to a number of the ways in which the independent living fund has grown over the years. It has grown from £1 million in 1989 to £100 million today and is now helping 21,000 people, or more—this is one of the rare occasions when the Labour party is saying that we are helping more people than we say we are helping. The Opposition's support and encouragement on that are welcome. The House should be reminded that the introduction of the ILF was criticised and questioned by

the Labour party. In listening to the Opposition's concerns today, we should bear in mind the fact that they have not always been fulsome in their support.
We should also bear in mind the fact that the fund has helped far more people than were being helped under the old supplementary benefit system. Before 1988, 6,000 people were being helped to the tune of some £30 per week. Today, 21,000 are being helped with a weekly average of over £110 per week. That shows clearly the Government's ongoing commitment.
That takes us to where we should go next. There can be no doubt about the success and popularity of the ILF. We must accept, however, that the benefit was introduced initially to help the most severely disabled people. All of us have had constituents come to us and say, "My friend down the road has been given support from the independent living fund. Why can't I, since my condition is similar?"
Inevitably in such cases, the boundaries become frayed and, in time, they are enlarged and more people benefit. It is very good that we can claim to be supporting more people than we ever envisaged supporting. However, we must also remember that the intention is to help the most severely disabled. The proposals will enable that intention to be maintained.
We must also consider areas where there is clear consistency, not just in name, but in the way in which the fund will operate in future. Through care in the community, it is the intention that care should be tailored to meet the individual needs of disabled people and that the structure of the support should be flexible to allow that to happen.
Also, and this is paramount, individual disabled people must be involved in determining how best their care needs can be met. We must stress, and the Government have made it clear, that the needs and wishes of disabled people should come first.

Mr. Bradley: If the package designed by the local authority conflicts with the wishes of the individual, would the hon. Gentleman support the right of an appeal system within the proposals?

Mr. Hendry: Any new system develops over time. We do not set a principle in cast iron and then, 20, 30 or 40 years later, say that it should not be changed. We must consider how the system operates and identify the difficulties. If flexibility or alterations are required in time, that can be achieved. To suggest that we are simply casting something in stone does not reflect historical precedents accurately.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: In the care in the community programme, we are dealing with local authorites which are ultimately governed by elected councillors and subject to the pressures of the normal lobbying process, not least the letter to the Member of Parliament asking him to intervene on behalf of the client concerned. Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea that we are creating a system in which there is no appeal procedure, redress or comeback is entirely false?

Mr. Hendry: I agree with my hon. Friend. Many of us have received letters from our constituents about the independent living fund. We have raised cases on their


behalf and have been able to ensure that those cases were reviewed properly and effectively. Members of Parliament can and do properly play that role.
I would also like to consider the fact that we recognise a need for change, but are also trying to establish a principle on a secure and long-term footing. On several occasions in my constituency, parents who are inevitably getting older have expressed their fears about their severely disabled children who may now be in their teens or twenties. They want to know how their children will be supported when they have died. That is an immensely responsible attitude.
From the conversations that I have had with such parents, and having seen their sincerity, I have no doubt that they would like their disabled children to be looked after as much as possible in the home where they were brought up within the community. Parents recognise that in familiar surroundings it will be easier for their children to face the pressures.
Several comments have been made about the role of the disability living allowance. Introducing something as large as that in one go has caused teething problems. I commend the Government for being willing to introduce something on a scale which will help more than 250,000 people. I commend them for introducing it in one go instead of phasing it in over four years, as the Labour Government did with mobility allowance; that helped only about 5,000 people. The Government took a brave and important step.
There will inevitably be a rush of cases and a huge administrative caseload to be handled. However, I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have reacted to that and I congratulate the people working in the benefits offices on the way that they have dealt with those problems. As a result of their efforts, 60 per cent. of claims are cleared within a month and older people are being targeted as priorities.
I am aware of cases in my constituency where people have felt that their cases have been delayed unduly. However, in relation to the vast number of cases that have already been handled, I have no doubt that the majority are being handled efficiently and effectively. There is now a system in place which is trying to push matters forward.

Mr. Bradley: What does the hon. Gentleman think about a situation in which the application of one of his constituents may have been delayed and missed the cut-off point? That person may have been awarded DLA, but would not have been able to apply to the ILF. Should such a person be compensated because he or she was unable to receive help from the ILF?

Mr. Hendry: One of the difficulties in implementing change is that there must be a cut-off date. We cannot get away from that. If after the cut-off date we say that anyone close to the cut-off date will receive special remedial treatment to ensure that that person does not receive less money than he might otherwise have received, we completely undermine the principle of change. If we are to make changes and tough and sometimes brave decisions, we must accept that there will be difficulties.
It is easy for the Opposition. They are not trying to raise taxes to pay for the support. They are not responsible for Government decisions. It is easy for Opposition Members to say time after time, "Let's throw more money at it." As it is not the Opposition's money, they can spend it as if it is going out of fashion. That has always been the

Opposition's tendency. However, if the Opposition ever want to be taken seriously as credible politicians, they must accept some of the financial facts of life.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend has just referred to the Labour party as the "Opposition". In a number of town halls around the country, the Labour party is charged with and is responsible for the delivery of services. From my experience and from the reports from constituents, I have noticed that many restrictions are placed on home helps—or, as they are now called, home carers—which include trade union restrictions and limits on whether they can work at weekends. I have heard that carers have been told that they must not work at weekends and they have had to do that work in secret. Opposition Members have said that they want more openness when such extraordinary arrangements are taking place. Does not that show that, when the Labour party is in power locally, things are very far from perfect?

Mr. Hendry: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to pay tribute to the incredible amount of work that he has carried out on behalf of disabled people through his involvement in charitable work and in pushing their case in the House.
I need no lectures or advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the difficulties involved in living with a Labour local authority. My constituency is in Derbyshire and we have one or two problems with our county council, not least in that area. It consistently refuses to charge for home helps. To suggest to people who, in many cases, have significant resources and would be happy and keen to pay towards the costs of home helps that they may not do that is absurd. Ultimately fewer people will receive home helps because there is no way of getting the additional resources from the people who would be happy and willing to pay towards that provision.

Mr. Jenkin: It is important that we do not tar all Labour councils with the same brush. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Strathclyde regional council, with which I became familiar when I contested a Labour stronghold in Glasgow, Central in the 1987 general election. That council made a very bold move, probably unconsciously, realising that it was privatising its social services, when it made its social workers self employed. The council employed people on piece-work contracts which effectively made the work force much more flexible so that they could provide a much more flexible service to clients. I would not always criticise Labour local authorities in the way that my hon. Friend has just done, although there is always justification for doing that in certain cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The debate is now ranging rather widely. If hon. Members will keep their comments within the boundaries of the debate, we shall be able to discuss the Bill thoroughly.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come directly to another aspect of the Bill that is worth our attention—Motability. All hon. Members will welcome the enormous growth in the provision of cars for disabled people under the Motability scheme. Since 1977, Motability has had a tremendous record for supplying cars. It hardly seems possible that in November 1991 Her Majesty the Queen presented the


250,000th car, yet less than two years later the Prime Minister will be handing over the keys for the 350,000th car. If we look at the number of cars that were provided last year, it presents an astonishingly good picture of an organisation that works effectively. In 1992, there were 75,195 applications for a car under the scheme, of which 63,745 were granted. That is an amazingly high figure and is a testimony to the way in which the Government have backed Motability by contributing to not only its running costs but its capital costs. The Government have worked in conjunction with the private sector, car manufacturers and those who convert cars to provide a real benefit to many members of the community.
I became aware recently of the case of a multiple sclerosis sufferer whose family had not taken a holiday together because of his inability to travel around the country. With little support from me, Motability moved fast to provide and convert a car, and as a result he and his young family enjoyed a holiday. I pay tribute to its work and the way in which it has helped countless thousands of others. More than 140,000 people have cars under the Motability scheme.
We should be grateful for the increased quality of cars. Not many years ago, we lived in mortal fear not of the quality of driving but of the fact that dangerous little three-wheelers were scurrying around the streets, posing a threat to many others. Disabled people can now have not only the dignity but the comfort of a standard car under the scheme, which is a tribute to the scheme and what it has been able to achieve.

Dr. Liam Fox: I hope that my hon. Friend will give credit to car manufacturers and banks for the help that they give to the scheme. Many hon. Members often attack the clearing banks for their behaviour in some sectors, but this is one area where they are contributing much to helping disabled people.

Mr. Hendry: I willingly do so. I paid tribute to the way in which car manufacturers have helped. I extend the warmth of my congratulations to the banks.
The significant increase in resources allocated to the independent living fund has demonstrated the Government's record of support for disabled people. When the Government took office in 1979, 360,000 disabled people were receiving help with the costs of their care and mobility but the figure has now increased to 2 million, which shows how vastly increased our commitment to disabled people has been in the past 14 years.
This year, £14·9 billion will be spent on the long-term sick and disabled, which represents an increase of £9·9 billion in the past 14 years. Any Conservative Member who suggests that the Government lack commitment in looking after the needs of disabled people need only look at those figures to realise how substantial our record of support has been.
The Bill deals with disabled people as whole; real people rather than simply statistics and numbers. I will not rehearse a range of arguments across education, transport and other matters but will consider a couple of aspects, the first of which is the right of disabled people to employment. I was very pleased and honoured recently to open a conference in my constituency on behalf of the

placing, assessment and counselling team in Derbyshire, which considers how employers can better take account of disabled people.
One of the things that struck me most during that seminar was the way in which the scales fell from the eyes of local employers who believed that there may be problems in hiring disabled people but who gradually realised that they should look beyond the disability at disabled people as whole people and hire them on the basis of their strengths and skills. One small element in that concept was the way in which the Government changed the title of my right hon. Friend from the Minister for the Disabled to the Minister for Disabled People. The Government recognised that they are disabled people and not an analogous lump. The more that employers do so, the better it will be not only for disabled people but for companies and employers.
I pay tribute to companies in my constituency that have gone way beyond their quota in hiring people who have disabilities. One firm, Otter Controls in Buxton, has made it a policy to take on people with disabilities. Despite the difficulties of the recession, from which it is now recovering, it has done all that it can to ensure that it continues to be a major employer of disabled people.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member referred to the right of disabled people to employment. He will know that there is very strong feeling in all the organisations of and for disabled people in Derbyshire, in particular, about the importance of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. May I take it that the Bill has his support? I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this field. He will know how strongly the Bill is supported by the organisations of and for disabled people in Derbyshire.

Mr. Hendry: I have told the organisations in Derbyshire that have made representations to me that I feel that the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister is correct. The Government wish to proceed through voluntary measures, and if that does not prove sufficient my right hon. Friend will reconsider legislation. I am instinctively opposed to unnecessary legislation. The rights of disabled people are immensely important, but it is much better to use voluntary procedures than to introduce legislation and the difficulties that go with it. As the legislation on equal opportunities for women and race relations have shown, there are inevitably difficulties when enshrining sufficient rights in law.
The final matter that I wish to consider is access for disabled people. I commend a young lady in my constituency who is significantly disabled and who recently was pushed around the town of Buxton in her wheelchair by a disabled colleague. She took her video camera to try to highlight for the benefit of people such as myself who are blessed in not suffering from the disabilities that she has the day-to-day problems that disabled people experience in trying to live their lives as normal people. A lot of Buxton was designed by the Georgians, who believed in pillars and lots of steps, so it is not easy for a disabled person to move around in a wheelchair. The town was built on many slopes and hills, which makes life more difficult. My constituent's work has done much to bring to the attention of the county council and myself the difficulties that disabled people face.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to look more generally at the needs of disabled people but particularly at the way


in which we look after and service the needs of the most severely disabled people in our society. I commend the Bill and recommend that the House gives it a Second Reading.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) has given us an able assessment of the benefits of the Bill. Indeed, throughout the debate hon. Members have successfully explored its benefits for severely disabled people. I should like to comment on the contribution by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) before he leaves the Chamber, and in due course on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
In a debate on a motion relating to the Bill of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe——

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful. In that debate I thought that we explored extremely well the subject of disabled people and civil rights. It opened my eyes to some of the disadvantages of the current set-up.
I remain unconvinced, however, that civil rights legislation in this area would solve the problem that it seeks to solve. There has been a gradual increase in the number of disabled people in employment and the disabled working allowance is proving of benefit, providing encouragement and incentive, not compulsion. That seems a better course.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the debate in the House on my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 26 February. He will know that the issue was debated for five hours on that day and that the motion was carried by the House after the Minister had spoken. I hope that he shares my pleasure in that decision by the House of Commons on that day. It is certainly shared by all the organisations of and for disabled people.

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly take note of the House's decision that day, although of course there was not a large number of hon. Members present to vote. I take note of the view expressed by the House in the early-day motion on the subject. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has waged—no one in the House has contributed as much to the debate on disabled people. I am sure that that debate will continue and that we will all continue to listen to the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The debate is by no means over.
I want to concentrate, first, on the purpose of the Bill; secondly, on the funding provided to enable it to be put into effect; and, thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, on the principles of assessment that will be used to apply the benefits of the Bill. I should begin, however, by discussing the background and the financial restrictions under which the Government are working.
We have a huge budget deficit. I am impressed that this debate should be taking place not to moan about the quantities of funding available, but, in a constructive spirit, to discuss how best the limited funds available should be allocated. That is a tribute to both sides of the House.
This Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out, fulfils a manifesto pledge that we made at the

general election. Its purpose is to help with financial support for the most severely disabled people. It unashamedly builds on the success of the independent living fund. I do not regard it as a step backwards from that fund; I regard it as an extension of the work of the fund, although we are delegating much of the responsibility for that to local authorities.
The Bill establishes the extension fund, supplementing the independent living fund, and the 1993 fund for new applicants, but it is the partnership with local councils that will represent an advance in the provision of care for the disabled—it is not a step backwards.
Secondly, the funding provided for the implementation of community care includes £26 million in the ring-fenced total of £565 million. The £26 million is for the severely disabled and that represents an overall improvement. Overall funding of community care has been generously increased for the forthcoming year. I refer to what was said by the incoming president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, quoted in The Independent on 3 October 1992:
We recognised that the public spending round would be difficult and we think that in the context of the present economic climate Mrs. Bottomley has done well to get this money and to give us specific funds for the second and third year of implementation.
That is not a cheapskate formula; the overall provision for the disabled, within overall community care budgets, is generous indeed. If we remember that the total provided for the disabled from the DSS budget is about £15 billion—a threefold real terms increase—it can hardly be accused of being cheapskate. The Government have clearly demonstrated their continuing commitment to the disabled.
My third point concerns the principle of assessment and the interesting discussion that we seem to be having about cash payments as opposed to direct provision. I have great sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in this regard. It is important to understand, however, how the local authority will fulfil the role of care adviser in the provision of care for the disabled under the care in the community proposals. First, the local authority will identify people who appear to be in need of care services; then it will assess what support or help they need. It will then share those assessments with the people Concerned—the most important aspect of this method of empowerment. It is important to involve the client in decisions about the type of provision, and that is expressly provided for under the care in the community proposals. Clients' wishes and preferences must be discussed with them so that their needs are reflected from a material point of view and so that they are involved in decisions about their care.
Finally, the local authority will decide what services should be arranged in response to the assessment. Such services may be provided by the local authority, but increasingly a greater proportion will be purchased under contract from organisations in the independent—the non-local authority—sector. That, too, is important, because there is a danger in the arrangements for community care that the services will be producer dominated. By specifying a limit on the quantity of services that can be directly provided by the local authority, a separation between purchaser and provider is created, and that will improve the authority's advocacy on behalf of the people who require the care.
If someone appears to need health services or help with housing, the authority has a duty to get in touch with the relevant people. This system will replace the system of special higher rate income support payments, currently available to the less well off people who enter residential and nursing homes, to help meet the costs of their care. The current system has a bias in favour of residential care, regardless of what is best for the people concerned. The reforms remove that bias, offering users genuine flexibility and choice in how they are looked after.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant drew our attention to the excellent work done by the Rowntree trust. I wish to draw attention to the developing ideas that we have for care advocacy and further separation of the role of the client and the care advocate, and that of the financier and provider. In particular, I draw attention to a case that I share with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale). It involves a family whose child is mentally handicapped and which recently lost control of the child. The simple reason is the easily imagined one. When a severely handicapped child is born, the parents naturally say that they will look after the child, but things become more difficult as the child gets older. Looking after a severely mentally handicapped teenager is a demanding operation.
In that case, the strain on the marriage and on family life and finances proved too much for the parents, and they finally accepted that the child would have to enter an institution. Imagine their shock when they realised how much that would cost. Let me emphasise that the health services had offered the child high-quality care, but it was institutional care, not family care or care in the home. For the lack of anything between £2,000 or £8,000 for the additional help that they needed in the home to enable them to continue looking after their child, the health service is now picking up a bill for about £35,000 a year.
That is where the argument for service advocacy or brokerage comes into play. We could not only make resources stretch much further, but involve the families of disabled or mentally handicapped people or the clients themselves where they are capable of making the decision. The money could be allocated to them, instead of to the health authority or the local authority to invest in plant—that is, a residential home or residential care of one sort or another.
The Rowntree trust draws attention to stories involving people in the work that it does. For example, Patrick, who had spent almost all his life in residential care until he moved into a home of his own at the age of 27, said, "It means exercising choice and control and having the right to choose who gets me up and who puts me to bed." In another case, 40-year-old Maria explained: "It means I can get up in the morning when I want to, I can go to bed in the evening when I want to, go out when I want to."
Extremely good though institutions may be, the present arrangements of institutionalised care often fail to enable disadvantaged people to lead their own lives, or to lead their lives with their families.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend quoted what seems a high figure for the cost of the care of a constituent's child, at I think £37,000 a year. Does he agree hat there are differences in how well organisations can manage their

budgets? Voluntary organisations can also call on charitable causes for their capital costs if not for a contribution to their running costs.
My son is now at an establishment called Brookvale, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—in Bury, South—where costs for care are only £15,000 a year, but the standard of care is very high. That compares to the cost of £30,000 a year for neighbourhood network homes in my constituency, run by the local authority, where I do not believe that, in all cases, the care is as good as it is at Brookvale.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend highlights the point that I am making, which is that different types of provision, provided at different standards, are available. We want the client and the families of the client to be involved in the choice of the provision. A purchaser-provider approach often means that the price of such provision is not as expensive as it is when it is provided by a top-down approach.
As we are debating service brokerage and carer advocacy, I shall say something about the ambiguity in the attitude of the Opposition. What we have successfully achieved in the independent living fund seems to have converted a substantial part of the Opposition to the idea of service brokerage. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out, that does not seem to extend to the social fund. I feel that it should extend to general practitioner fund holding because that is a form of service brokerage where the purchasing power is put in the hands of a care adviser—a general practitioner. He or she then decides, on behalf of the client, how best to allocate resources on behalf of the patient. It means that the community care proposals that are to be implemented at the beginning of April are an interim step on the long road to more responsive care in the community, in its generic meaning, of all kinds. It is artificial to have a care advisory or brokerage system simply for the disabled and not involve the health services and all the other relevant services.
The ultimate social services system of the future must ensure that, where moneys for health and social services for those acute cases are all held under one fund, and a single broker advises the client or the client's family on the services that are required, they are purchased from the local authority, the private sector providers, the health service and all the other institutions, bodies and charities that are involved in acute care. That interesting and exciting challenge lies before us as we develop social services and health care in the 1990s. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is a tribute to the House that, for the second time in a little over a fortnight, we have been afforded an opportunity to have a serious debate about the needs of disabled people. It has been a privilege to hear some of the speeches made on both sides of the House on that important matter.
I was, however, a little disappointed at the ribaldry among Opposition Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) praised the hard work done by the civil servants in the disability living allowance unit and elsewhere to assist disabled


people. I pay tribute to those officials, with whom my constituency office works closely to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend spoke of Opposition Members. Is it not right to point out that, during almost all the debate, there have been twice as many hon. Members on the Government Benches as there have been on the Opposition Benches? Even now, there are 10 Members on these Benches and only five on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes his own point, which will be noted by everyone outside the House.
I hope that it will be in order, when paying tribute to those staff, also to pay tribute to the House of Commons staff who work closely with them to achieve satisfactory outcomes for disabled people in our constituencies. The Benefits Agency staff and the DLA staff are always anxious to do all that they can to promote the needs and interests of those in genuine need. In particular, I should like to praise the staff of the Benefits Agency office in Worcester, who work so hard and consistently for disabled people.
The original independent living fund was a bold partnership. It was not without controversy when it was introduced but it has become a central part of the Government's commitment to disabled people. Perhaps it is not surprising that within two years of the fund's introduction the Select Committee on Social Services was writing:
On 9 February 1990 the Minister for Disabled People issued a press release headed: 'Independence is the key to better lives for Disabled People'. The help provided by the Independent Living Fund cannot be appropriate for all disabled people. We believe however that the Independent Living Fund has given meaning to the Minister's phrase for many disabled people. Our concern is that the Government has not fully appreciated the innovatory nature of the ILF in giving some disabled people and their families the resources to build up their own packages of care. We recommend that the ILF should continue to exist not only for an interim period, but also after the implementation of community care legislation, and should be provided with sufficient resources to meet the claims of those who meet the present criteria to help from the Fund, and whose needs have not been met through the eventual implementation of community care policy.
I was delighted to find that the Conservative party's manifesto, to which I still attach great importance, contained a strong commitment to maintaining a fund to support the most severely disabled people.
Slightly more than two weeks ago we debated the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that there is no more fundamental civil right for a disabled person than the opportunity to decide how he or she will live his or her own life. In that context, the ability of the individual to remain in his own home is of central importance. It is important also to emphasise the mobility aspects of this civil right and to welcome especially the features of the Bill that relate to Motability.
The Bill widens the legislative powers that govern the Government grant that is paid to Motability. It will enable the Government to ensure that they can continue to fund the organisation in future. I am glad to say that Motability commands genuine cross-party support in the House. It helps disabled people to obtain a car or a powered wheelchair on favourable terms, thus increasing their independence.
The people most often helped by the charity are the severely disabled, who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. They include people with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, muscular atrophy and many other crippling conditions. We have heard unusual tributes from hon. Members to the role of the clearing banks in helping to fund Motability, and it should be recognised that it is a partnership. It is a registered charity that is assisted by the Department of Social Security, clearing banks, motor manufacturers and dealers and insurance companies. I am sure that we all have constituents who benefit from the operation of the scheme.
The Government pay significant sums to Motability and about 140,000 people are now being helped. Since the scheme's inception, about 330,000 vehicles have been supplied. It is worth bearing in mind that the scheme has helped the environment, apart from the disabled, through its pioneering role in pushing the case for lead-free petrol.
Reference to the mobility features of the Bill enable me to correct an omission from my speech——

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman has referred to motor manufacturers and dealers, clearing banks, insurance companies and other interests that were brought together to create Motability. Speaking as a patron of Motability, may I say that I hope that he will appreciate that it has always relied as well on a great deal of voluntary effort. Many people give of their time to ensure the success of this very important organisation, and have done so continuously since it was started by the memorandum of 1977.

Mr. Luff: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is a timely one. I intended to move on to emphasise that aspect of Motability's work and to link it with the work of another scheme for disabled people, shop mobility, which makes an enormous contribution to the mobility of disabled people. It enables them to make their purchases in ordinary shops in shopping centres, for example. I was privileged to see in great detail the work of shop mobility at Worcester when I drew its Christmas raffle some months ago. The role of the voluntary sector—individuals—in helping the disabled to achieve independence in their lifestyle must never be overlooked.
The Government should be proud of their record in responding to the needs of disabled people. The increase in spending has been phenomenal, and that is spending of which the ILF is a part. Spending has trebled in real terms since 1978–79, and is now £14·9 billion. We have seen the introduction of the disability living allowance. It has not been without its problems, but already there have been nearly a third of a million successful claims. I especially welcome the disability working allowance, which provides a top-up for the earnings of disabled people.
I attach enormous importance to giving independence to disabled people and their ability to choose their own lifestyle in the context of the role of carers. Expenditure on the invalid care allowance has increased significantly from only £4 million when the Government came to power to about £366 million today. The number of beneficiaries has increased from 5,000 to 195,000.
It is entirely appropriate that one of the key objectives to the Government's proposals for community care is to ensure that service providers give practicial support for carers a higher priority. That is recognised in the Government's White Paper, "Caring for People". There is


clear recognition in that document that helping carers to maintain their valuable contribution is right and a sound investment. Local authorities and health authorities will be expected to continue to develop services for carers in advance of the introduction of assessments in April.
It is not going too far to say that carers are perhaps the most long-established voluntary sector that looks after the disabled. I am concerned that their work should not be over-professionalised. It is work that often goes unsung, and even more often it is unnoticed. I am sure that the entire House would wish to offer thanks and gratitude to those who are doing so much to promote the interests of disabled people.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is far too young to remember that the process started with the work of the Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. It has continued for many years since then.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of us are accustomed to seeing carers in that context. There are so many relationships that relieve the state of a financial burden and enhance the quality of life of the individuals who receive care.
I welcome the role of local authorities. The Government are often criticised for diminishing their role, but that is not our objective. It is often our objective to take powers to others, and I have in mind grant-maintained schools. They represent an attempt to give power to parents, not to take power from local authorities.
The Bill will do exactly the opposite of what our critics sometimes accuse us of doing because it will significantly enhance the role of local authorities. The ILF and its successors provide help on the basis of a care plan that is agreed between the fund, the disabled person and the local authority. As a result of assessment, the authority will provide a specified level of service, which the fund will then supplement by a cash payment to the client.
If the system is to work properly, it is essential that local authorities have full confidence in their ability to live with their side of the care-in-the-community bargain. I know that a year or so ago, when care in the community had still not been fully implemented, nursing homes in my constituency and in the area covered by the county council were worried that they would not be in a position to take on that responsibility. I made vigorous representations to the Government, as a result of which, I believe, the Government have responded appropriately to ensure that local authorities can play their full role in delivering care in the community. I welcome particularly the generous funding that the Government have made available to local authorities to enable them to do that. If there were not the confidence that the necessary funding was in place, I do not think that there would be the same confidence in the value of the ILF and its successors.
Local authorities have been allocated significant additional funds to support their new responsibilities for community care. The ring-fenced grant of £565 million for England, specifically and exclusively for community care next year, is very welcome. That sum includes some £399 million that would otherwise have been spent through the DSS; £140 million to facilitate the introduction of the changes; and £26 million to help meet the needs of severely disabled people.
It is important that we remember that that ring-fenced money is in addition to the general increase for social services spending next year. Taking both of those into account, councils in England will receive a massive 15 per cent. increase in their personal social services standard spending assessment next year, to a total of £5·6 billion. It is an important development if the needs of disabled people are to be properly protected by local authorities.
I take particular comfort from the £26 million to which I referred, which is being provided in recognition of the additional costs that will fall to local authorities as a result of the closure of the independent living fund to new clients and the establishment of the 1993 fund. That sum is budgeted to rise to £53 million in the following financial year and to £100 million in the year after that. By any standards, that is a significant sum of money.
In that context, it is little wonder that my county council, Herefore and Worcester, has given a warm welcome to the Government's approach to care in the community in general, and to the two new funds in particular. However, the council does have two difficulties, which are not unique to Hereford and Worcester. The first difficulty is that in delivering care in the community, whether for disabled or able people, the council has to deal with a large number of authorities. The second difficulty is the large number of elderly people retiring to the area, many of whom have significant disabilities.
On the council's first difficulty, it has to deal with three health districts—North Worcestershire, Worcester and District, and Hereford—as well as nine district councils. It also has to deal with the various voluntary bodies, housing associations and other organisations. It has to liaise with all of them to deliver the service effectively. There is a continuing, strong and powerful case for further rationalisation of the administrative boundaries of government to enable the effective delivery of Government policies.
On the council's second difficulty about the pressure of numbers, anything that the Bill does to relieve the pressure for residential accommodation in Hereford and Worcester will be welcomed.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great benefits of the ILF is that it has been able to meet a huge increase in numbers—from 6,000 to 21,000—very effectively? Is not that something to be welcomed?

Mr. Luff: That is right. There has been a dramatic increase in the numbers being helped across the whole range of Government assistance to the disabled. When we hear criticisms about, for example, the disability living allowance, it is important to remember the very sharp increase in numbers helped. It is a great tribute to those involved in the delivery of the various help available to disabled people.
My county council expects the Bill to be of particular value in the rural areas, where it is especially beneficial to be able to keep disabled people in their own homes rather than force them into residential accommodation, often against their will. If that provision is to be delivered effectively, it will mean a close working relationship with a large number of bodies, such as housing associations.
It is important to remember that one reason why such a large number of elderly, often disabled, people are attracted to my area is that the county council has


followed Government policy and encouraged the provision of private sector care. It has not resisted that, as some Labour-controlled county councils have done. However, the council is concerned that, because it has encouraged that provision and worked closely with the private sector in providing care for the elderly and the disabled, it will be penalised under the funding arrangements for care in the community.
I very much welcome the way in which the Government have approached the special transitional grants, which have significantly reduced my council's fears. The geographical patterns of DSS spending on residential care are very different from the patterns for standard spending assessments. Inevitably, DSS expenditure is linked to the areas where the homes are located. Because of the often different political perspective on how such care should be provided, the homes operate with very different rates in different parts of the country.
I understand that it is the Government's intention that, in the long run, all funds for community care should be distributed through the revenue grant, on the basis of standard spending assessments. However, the Government recognise that a precipitate rush to that mechanism would imply a significant and rapid shift of resource, which might lead to severe problems for the elderly and the disabled in specific council areas. Therefore, I welcome the transitional arrangements. It is all part of the confidence building that enables me to have confidence that the successors to the ILF will deliver the necessary care to disabled people. I hope that the Government will keep a careful eye on the transitional arrangements to ensure that there are adequate funds for county councils such as mine.
I understand that the entire caseload of the ILF will be transferred to the extension fund. I have been told that people will "in the main" be unaware of any changes to the fund other than the change of name. The term "in the main" causes me some alarm. We know that many of those who benefit from the fund are people in great personal need. We also know the very real distress that any change—or even the threat or rumour of change—in their financial arrangements would cause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that the term "in the main" will be struck out and that individuals will, in fact, be unaware of any changes to the fund. It is important that that fear or threat is removed.
There is some controversy about the reduction to 65 in the upper age limit under the new fund. I know the reasons that the Government have given for that, and I respect them. In current circumstances, it would be irresponsible to argue for any increase in the upper age limit. However, I hope that the Government will carefully monitor the way that the funds operate and that if they think it appropriate at some stage to increase the upper age limit they will do so.
I especially welcome the way that the Bill has built on the Government's determination to break down the barriers between the public and the private sectors and to build on the work of the voluntary sector. I am constantly impressed by the extraordinary efforts of the voluntary sector in my constituency. Indeed, I am often moved by the efforts of individuals to assist less fortunate members of our society. It has always seemed to me to be a tragedy that, previously, there was a view that care was provided either privately or publicly. Now, we are moving towards

a spectrum of provision. That is a healthy development in the way that we provide for the care of less fortunate members of our society.
The fund was an interim measure, but expenditure rose from £1 million on its inception to £100 million today. The Bill provides conclusive evidence of the Government's commitment to the disabled, but that commitment must not blind us to the excellent work of many local authorities, individual carers and the plethora of voluntary bodies to which I referred earlier. The Bill is more than anything else about providing disabled people with choice and dignity, and in that spirit I commend it to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The debate has been interesting and wide-ranging and we commend those hon. Members who made practical contributions, as well as those who expressed philosophical views about the future needs of the disabled. I commend in particular the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the excellent contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
It would be remiss not to point out that, although much of tonight's debate centred on the independent living fund and its successor, notable plaudits were handed out for the work of Motability. We pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in establishing that scheme. It is no exaggeration to say that the continuation of Motability, which has been a worldwide success, is greatly to be welcomed. It gives me particular pleasure to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend as a fellow Manchester Member of Parliament.
We heard excellent contributions also on the practical details from the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberanuld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). Interesting philosophical contributions were made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).
I cannot say that all the contributions were of the same significance and it was a cheap jibe on the part of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to comment on the number of hon. Members on his side of the House as compared with this side of the House and then for the hon. Gentleman to disappear to the Tea Room. As the hon. Gentleman flitted in and out of the Chamber tonight, perhaps he should have been present to hear the concluding speeches.
The independent living fund was introduced to deal with the urgent need to repair the gap created by the withdrawal of special allowances for the disabled available under the old supplementary benefit scheme. I pay tribute to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for identifying that gap and introducing the fund quickly. However, under the old system the disabled had statutory rights to help but the ILF was a discretionary fund. It was successful because its trustees, director and staff recognised that they would have to fight all the way to win acknowledgement for the needs of the disabled, ensure the availability of funds, and use discretion in ensuring the continuity of payments.
It was said that the discretionary ILF, which we praised, should be compared with the social fund. Our


criticism of the social fund does not relate to the payments made in terms of community care grants but loans. It was never a feature of the ILF that the disabled were expected to pay for the services that they received or to repay cash payments made to them. There is a fundamental difference between the two funds.
At the centre of the thinking of the fund's trustees, director and staff, and of the Minister, was the rights of disabled people. I do not believe that the Bill is particularly supported by the Minister because the rationale behind the successor fund is clearly Treasury-led and is about money and not the needs of the disabled.
No right hon. or hon. Member expected the ILF to go on for ever. The Government announced as long ago as January 1990 that it would be replaced when the community care legislation came into effect. However, nobody could have foreseen the suddenness with which the fund would be wound up, in the form of a short statement from the trustees—who were placed in an invidious position—and a brief DSS press release dated 24 November 1992, informing potential claimants that they had one day to finalise their ILF applications. Nobody expected that the new fund would be so limited in its terms of reference in respect of new claimants.
The Government have announced two successor funds, the ILF extension fund—which is to take over the current caseload of 22,000 people—and the new ILF 1993 fund for new claimants. What is so unacceptable is the position of people who failed to apply to the old fund, along with the limitation in the scope of the new fund. I shall return to those points later.
Tonight's debate has highlighted key elements which I am sure the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will want to consider further. It has underlined the uncertain future of disabled people—first, in regard to the way in which the two successor trusts have been set up. It is strange that we should debate this Bill on 15 March, given that it will, in practice, come into effect in barely two weeks' time; moreover, only two trustees have been appointed. Indeed, I understand that they were appointed solely to ensure that a bank account could be set up to ensure the continuation of some payments from 1 April. It is scandalous that the other five trustees have not yet been appointed—if they have been appointed, their appointment has certainly not been announced to the House tonight.
It is disgraceful that, although the Minister paid fulsome tribute to the work of the previous trustees, staff and director, none of those people has been considered for appointment to the new fund. I am not arguing their case in particular; I am saying that their expertise, the importance that they have attached to the needs of disabled people and the continuity that they have provided are being lost through the Government's decision not to allow them to continue. I gather that, although they had been told that they were no longer required, they offered to stay in post for a further 15 months for the sake of continuity, to ensure that there would be no hiccups in the changeover and to prevent disabled people from being disadvantaged. Sadly, the Government rejected their offer.
I looked up the details of many of the trustees in "Who's Who". I find it incredible that someone with the expertise of Mr. Lyon—who was an ILF treasurer, has an impeccable record of service and was once president of the

Institute of Actuaries—was told that he was no longer required to help to organise the successor fund. The Government should seriously reconsider the nature of trustees. The rejection of any representatives of the Disablement Income Group—or, it would appear, of the disability world in general—is to be particularly deprecated. I hope that, in considering the appointment of the other five trustees, the Government will take into account the expertise of people from the world of disability to ensure that the interests of disabled people are properly represented.
I am also anxious about the amount of money that will be available, first, for the extension fund. We have been told that £117 million, in round terms, will be available, in 1993–94; that £119 million will be available in 1994–95;and that £121 million will be available in 1995–96. It is not clear, however, whether those amounts will be sufficient to cover in full any increase in the care costs of those already receiving support from the ILF. Mention has been made of people dropping out of the fund for various reasons, but a good deal of concern is felt nevertheless. The Government recently confirmed that,
subject to its cash limited provision, the successor body will have…power to review the awards of existing beneficiaries."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217; c. 587.]
The worry is that if budgetary pressures develop there will be nothing to stop the new trustees of the extension fund reducing the payment or making less favourable the terms for payment. That pressure was put on the old ILF and the trustees had to make adjustments, if only in terms of who was eligible. I hope that the Minister will allay the worry that if budgetary pressure is put on the extension fund people who already receive help from it will not have the amount that is available to them reduced.
I reiterate what hon. Members have said about thousand of people being left out of the 1993 fund. The new fund will exclude thousands of people with severe disabilities. The restrictions proposed on access to cash from the ILF's successor are far greater than those which applied to the ILF, even though that has become increasingly restricted since its introduction in 1988.
The Official Report of 15 December 1992, c. 153–55, shows that the Government estimate that approximately 10,000 severely disabled people who might have looked to the ILF for cash help will not be eligible for such help from the new fund. A total of no more than 1,500 people a year are expected to receive help, compared with roughly 8,500 who were taken on by the ILF in the last financial year. That is a severe restriction on the number of people who will receive direct help from the 1993 ILF fund. Many of those people, if not the overwhelming majority of them, will be over 65 years of age. That is a major concern. More than one person in three, 34 per cent., who received help from the independent living fund in November 1992 was over the age of 65. The Government estimate that it will cost an additional £2 million in 1993–94 if eligibility is extended to include people over retirement age. That will rise to a mere £9 million in 1995–96.
In the context of overall Government expenditure, it is difficult to accept that such a relatively small amount could justify the exclusion of this age group from access to the new fund. Projecting as far forward as 1995–96 a mere £9 million could be allocated to the fund to allow the


extension of eligibility to those who are over the age of 65. I urge the Government to think again and to ensure that those people are not excluded.
The organisations representing that age group are extremely concerned. We have heard the view of the Alzheimers Association and I shall reinforce that view by repeating it. It stated:
95 per cent. of people with dementia are over working age.
Those people will be excluded from the fund. Age Concern wrote to me today and said:
Discrimination against older people, in the form of denying them access to disability benefits, is unacceptable. Such discrimination implies that disability is considered normal in later life. Most older people live full and healthy lives into their 70s and beyond. The minority who do become disabled should not be denied extra help with the financial costs of disability.
Those comments should ring loudly in the ears of Ministers and I hope that they will be further considered. If they are not considered, people with no opportunity to apply for help from the independent living fund may be forced into residential care.
Eligibility is further restricted because not only do people have to be between the ages of 16 and 65 but they have to be in receipt of the highest rate of the care component of the disability living allowance. After paying care costs with help from the fund such people would have to be left with income at or about the level of income support and would otherwise have gone into residential care. That creates a care equation on which local authorities will make their assessment for help from the new fund.
Under the care in the community provisions, local authorities will be required to assess the needs of people with disabilities, for the purpose of agreeing a care package, but when considering an application for a grant from the new fund on behalf of a person who meets the eligibility requirements the local authority will have to work out the total cost of that individual's community care package. The local authority will be expected to provide services that are equivalent to agreed thresholds, based on the average care costs to local authorities of a place in residential or nursing care.
This assessment rests entirely upon the local authority. What we see straight away is the lack of the right of the individual to be properly consulted. Mention has already been made of the need to reconsider whether the service element should be translated into a cash payment. We have heard many times tonight that one of the great successes of the old fund was that individuals had the right to be a party to deciding their care needs, to purchasing their care needs and to ensuring that their care needs met their individual requirements. However good local authorities will be in making those assessments, because of the general constraints placed upon them and their need to maximise what we do not believe will be a sufficient allocation of money for care in the community, they will be unable to meet sensitively the individual needs of disabled people. We want to protect those rights.
We are worried by the guidelines that have been issued. One section of the guidelines stresses that there should be a partnership with the local authorities. It says that the fund will provide help only on the basis of a care plan agreed between the fund, the disabled person and the local authority, whereby the authority will provide a specific level of service which the fund will supplement with a cash

payment to the individual client. The guidelines refer to an agreed care plan. If, therefore, the local authority or the fund do not agree the plan, the individual is caught in the middle and does not obtain access to the help that he or she so desperately needs. That problem could be overcome if the care package were funded by means of a cash payment and if the individual were allowed to spend that money on meeting his or her individual needs.
We are worried about the cost calculations, a point that has been made strongly in the debate, and the ring fencing of the £26 million that is to be handed over to local authorities. I am not, in many ways, a keen advocate of ring fencing, particularly at a time when we should give to local authorities freedom to get on with the job of assessing care packages in general for care in the community, not the particular needs of disabled people. However, because of the community care pressures on local authority budgets, it is inevitable that local authorities will look at the total money available and see how best it can be stretched to meet the needs not only of the severely disabled but of the disabled, the elderly and other groups for which they are responsible.
The great worry is that the £26 million will not meet the needs of the disabled people for whom that money is intended. When the Government look at the way in which the fund works in practice and at the way in which local authorities in practice draw up their plans, I hope that they will ensure that the £26 million meets the target for disabled people. As the system settles down, I hope that ring fencing will not be required. The Government have justified ring fencing of the community care budget in general, so they should specifically ensure that the £26 million for disabled people is ring fenced.
There is immense concern that the amount of money in the independent living (1993) fund will be insufficient to meet the needs of the people who will apply to the fund. In 1993–94, the new fund will have a budget of a mere £4 million, a tiny amount compared with the independent living fund's latest annual budget of £97 million. I know that they are not directly comparable, but, having restricted the number of people eligible and cut out the over-65s, the Government are allowing fewer people to get help by allocating a small budget which, on their own admission, will serve only 1,500 people. The Minister shakes his head. Does he seriously believe that only 1,500 people need help from the ILF 1993 successor fund? I look forward to the first reviews of that fund when we shall find out how many people have been left out of the system.
Many people were denied the right to apply to the old fund because of the bureaucratic delays and administrative chaos caused by the introduction of the disability living allowance. Many people have commended the Minister for not phasing in the DLA, but the people who applied to the DLA agency say that it has been phased in. They have had to wait months and months for their entitlement.
I am glad that the Minister has clarified the trustees' role. He passed the buck to them for denying to people who had suffered administrative delays the right to apply to the old fund. In answer to a question from me, the Minister said:
It would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund, before deciding to cease taking claims with a view to having an orderly hand-over of cases to the new trust in April, to deem someone who had applied for disability living allowance to have been in receipt of it and,


therefore, to be eligible for help through the independent living fund."—[Official Report, 10 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 1081.]
The trustees were outraged by that statement because they had given a commitment to the Minister that, at the end of the financial year, they would not pass on any commitments which could not be filled from the old fund. It was an outrage that they were told that they had the discretion to keep the fund open longer, not knowing how many people could be deemed to be in receipt, and then not being able to fulfil the financial requirements.
The Minister has tried to rectify the situation. I do not believe that he was responsible for that statement; I think that he was trying to cover up for Lord Henley in another place. I am glad that he has put the record straight because it was a scar on the integrity of the trustees. They were trying to do the best that they could in difficult circumstances with the cash available. It was never on offer to them to keep the fund open beyond the cut-off date.
Thousands of people who may have been eligible to apply to the ILF have been denied the right to do so because of the administrative chaos in processing their applications. In addition, if they had had their applications processed, that access may have been a passport to other benefits sooner. I believe that the Minister should reconsider the case of people who had made their applications before the cut-off date, who were subsequently found to be eligible for the DLA and who could have applied to the old ILF. Some compensation should be given to ensure that they have not been doubly disadvantaged by administrative delays and the lack of opportunity to get funds from the old ILF.
We have always been worried about the lack of consultation and continuity—the old fund will end before the new system, which is to come into operation properly on 1 April, has been set up. We are worried that, by 15 March, the Bill has still not completed all its stages and needs to go to another place for consideration. Many people involved in disability issues are concerned to ensure that there is no delay in payment to people already in receipt of money from the ILF. We want that assurance, but we also want the assurance that, despite the complexities that will clearly arise when the 1993 fund is in motion from 1 April, the relationship between the fund and the local authority will have been properly worked out and established.
I have no confidence from the documents that I have seen that there has been proper dialogue. As two of the trustees were appointed only a couple of weeks ago, there has clearly been no dialogue between the trustees and the local authorities about how the system will work in practice. We must ensure that the arrangements are in place and that there is no delay for the limited number of people who will seek care through the local authority and the independent living fund jointly. We must ensure that there is continuity and that there is not the administrative chaos that has been the hallmark of the disability living allowance.
Under the new system, the stated hallmark of most Government policies—choice for the individual—will be even more curtailed than it is now. People will no longer be able to choose their own carers as they would have been able to under the old independent living fund. The recent guidelines state:

the 1993 fund will not consider applications direct from an individual who has not first been in contact with his or her local authority social services department".
What is of great concern is the difficulties that individuals may have when the new system comes into effect on 1 April as a result of the massive job that local authorities will have to do in assessing a range of people who will come under their jurisdiction. People with the greatest needs may be put into a queue because they cannot make direct representations to the new fund, as they could to the old fund, for someone to come to see what their situation is. They will have to rely on the local authorities.
There is massive concern that the resources in the coming months will be limited. Naturally, priorities will be set by the local authorities about where they start the whole process. As the independent living fund element has been so delayed—I stress that we are debating it only a couple of weeks before it will come into practice—there will be further considerable delays which will hit the most severely disabled people. I hope that the Minister can give us assurances tonight that there will be no delay or, if there is likely to be delay, what contingency plans he will prepare to ensure that the needs of disabled people who will apply first are met.
Many disabled people have been in limbo since the old fund was abolished on 25 November. They have been asked to wait and there have been assurances that the new fund will be there to meet their needs. Those assurances can be met only if the administrative arrangements are clearly in place and if a proper relationship is established between the local authorities and the new funds. If not, disabled people will again be caught in the middle—caught in the care trap. They may be less able to suffer such delay than people with less severe disabilities are. It will be seen as a scandal by all; it will certainly be seen as a scandal by people with severe disabilities.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Opposition will not vote against the Bill tonight because we do not want to deny disabled people access to funds. When the Bill goes into Committee, we shall press the Government on crucial points. I hope that as a result of the contributions of my hon. Friends and myself tonight the Minister will give special consideration to the role of the trustees and their relationship with the disabled community, special consideration to the needs of the over-65s and special consideration to whether there will be a ceiling on the contributions of the local authority and of the independent living (1933) fund. If applications are not made to the independent living fund, local authorities will be free to extend their contribution. If an application is made to the independent living fund, there will be a ceiling of £510. We seek assurances on that and, equally, that the figure will not be set in concrete as the one that will be around for years to come, but will be annually reviewed in reports to the House to ensure that the sums available through the local authorities' service contribution and the independent living fund meet the needs of disabled people. That issue and many others will be discussed in Committee.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss the practical and philosophical issues affecting disabled people. I hope that the Minister will be able not only to allay the Opposition's many fears but to address the anger that has been expressed by people who work with disabled people


and by disabled people themselves, who do not believe that their needs will be properly met by the two successor funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) for putting the case with his customary clarity. I shall endeavour to answer his questions.
We have had a good and wide-ranging debat—much of it, I feel, conducted on the false premise that the change in the nature of the independent living fund somehow does away with a category of care for a whole group of people. That is not the case; it is a false belief, arrived at by those who have considered the Bill out of the context of community care as a whole. I hope to show that the worries expressed by Opposition Members are not founded.
As always in disability debates, a high degree of knowledge and care has been brought to bear by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have heard a variety of extremely good speeches. I commend the opening speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—a man who understands disabled people very well—who put the Government's case extremely well. My right hon. Friend was answered in a number of good speeches by Opposition Members. I commend in particular the comments by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—a friend of long standing—who speaks with great knowledge on these matters.
The kindest part of the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was the reference to my footballing prowess. Whatever deals may or may not be negotiated in the next few weeks, I shall certainly remember those remarks.
I was grateful also to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), whose experience in social policy matters is a great asset to the House, as are the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who brings a degree of intellectual rigour to these matters of which we shall all live in dread for many years to come. His was another excellent speech.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), brought to our attention down-to-earth concerns about the problems of disability in their own constituencies. Others spoke more widely about the Government's record on disability and carers. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Luff) and for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) made significant contributions in that regard. We had a wide variety of different speeches, all of them made with clarity and care, and I shall do my best to answer in the most logical and straightforward way, bearing in mind the constraints of time.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked why we needed to proceed under Standing Order No. 48 and referred to problems of hybridity. The Bill has been introduced because it was found that payments to the independent living fund and Motability were not properly covered by section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Under the Public Accounts Committee concordat, it is not appropriate to rely on the annual

appropriation Act alone to sanction outgoing payments. The Bill is introduced under Standing Order No. 48 because its main object is to create a charge on public funds. Questions of hybridity are for Madam Speaker to rule on rather than for the Government to determine. I understand that those matters have been examined and that there is no problem of hybridity in this case.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also wanted to know whether regulations will be introduced. The schemes are discretionary schemes set up by trust deeds. Accordingly, there is no need for Government statutory instruments or directions. The trust deeds and the conditions of grants set out the parameters within which the trustees can exercise their discretion. In a sense, that forms the regulatory framework that secondary legislation and regulations would have formed had there been an Act and statutory procedure.
If that were the case, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also wanted to know, quite rightly, who would have access to the trust deeds. The trusts are private trusts and the deeds are not necessarily available to the public generally. However, the founding trustees have agreed that the deeds should be made available in the Library and I am sure that they would be willing for the deeds to be made more widely available. I am sure that we all hope that that is the case. There is no reason why the deeds should not be made available to the agencies which expect to make most use of the funds. I cannot see a particular problem in relation to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made a significant contribution which was full of detail and obvious knowledge of the subject. I pay tribute to that. He questioned whether the trust deed was over-restrictive. The trust deeds and conditions of grant set out the parameters within which the trustees are able to exercise their discretion. The two new trusts will derive the whole of their resources from the Government. It is therefore perfectly proper for the Government to set down clearly the conditions under which the money is granted.
The trusts are not controlled by regulations. Therefore, all the controls on a very significant amount of money must be set down in the key trust documents. Accordingly, they are set down in detail. The conditions may appear pernickety, but they amount to no more than good accounting practice. It is better to be as clear as possible about the requirements in advance than for the Government to seek additional information later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised a point, which was also raised by several Opposition Members, about the continuity of trustees. My right hon. Friend has already expressed his gratitude to the trustees, as I do, of the current independent living fund. The current fund was set up as an interim measure jointly by the Department of Social Security and the Disablement Income Group. The trustees have done a splendid job, but the new 1993 fund will operate in new ways in partnership with local authorities.
It is of course our intention that at least one of the trustees should be disabled. However, I do not believe that there is a need for continuity of trustees. There will be continuity of the staff at Nottingham, but I believe that the time has come for a new group of trustees to carry the work forward following the introduction of community care. Notwithstanding the excellence of previous trustees,


it cannot be the case that new trustees are not available who would also show similar expertise, care and attention to the matters in hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon also suggested that the director and staff had not been encouraged to stay. That is not so. The director of the ILF had been on secondment from the Department for five years—an unusually long secondment. The creation of the new funds provided a suitable opportunity for a change and we have recruited a new director.
As for the staff, it is not true to say that they have been encouraged to leave. Far from it. The Department has encouraged the existing staff to stay. Indeed, the contracts of the directly employed staff have been extended in advance of 1 April to provide reassurance for the staff.

Mr. Dewar: I would not normally press the Minister on this, but as he has said that a director has been appointed, I do not think that we know who that is. Can he possibly tell us who it is?

Mr. Burt: Yes. A new director has been appointed. Her name is Margaret Baldwin. She is expected to take up her post in mid-April.
Two trustees have been appointed—Robin Wendt, the secretary of the Association of County Councils and member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and John Shepherd, a retired finance director of Remploy. The two men will bring excellent care to the new body of trustees and plans are in hand to recruit the remaining five trustees. Three more will be appointed shortly and the rest in the near future. I am quite sure that the new trustees will exhibit the same degree of quality and care as that exhibited by the trustees of the previous funds.
Hon. Members mentioned the closure of the independent living fund, and I am anxious to answer their questions. The fund was not forced to close because of deficiencies in its funding. The timing of the closure to new applications was a matter for the fund's trustees. It was always intended that, in its present form, the fund would cease to operate in April 1993, although payments would continue to those who were receiving money from it as of 31 March. The trustees promised that they would ensure that all applications for help were processed by 31 March. They took the decision to close to new applications with effect from 25 November 1992 to process the applications already in hand.
One or two hon. Members asked why more time was not allowed. People were aware that the fund was due to close in April 1993 and therefore more applications were being made in anticipation. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that if a closing date had been set at some stage in advance, it would only have encouraged a last-minute sale, which would have made it impossible for the fund to continue.
The trustees took the decision to close with great reluctance but recognised that the fund had become a victim of its own success. By last November, there was a backlog of 6,500 outstanding applications, which the trustees had a legal obligation to clear before the planned and final closure of the fund on 31 March. I know that staff have worked hard to clear the backlog, assess applications and process cases.

Mr. Dewar: Before the Minister concludes—we have left him a full half hour—will he deal with the small but important point about people who might have been eligible to apply before the closing date but were not in a position to do so because of delays in processing DLA claims? How does he propose to ensure that they are not prejudiced? If it is clear that several months of support have been lost, some form of backdating should be considered.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point and I am happy to deal with it. I appreciate that some people who were awaiting a decision on a DLA claim before applying to the independent living fund were unable to apply before 25 November. I regret that, but payments from the ILF are charitable and discretionary, so there is no question of an automatic entitlement or of backdating. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) because it certainly was not the intention of Ministers to suggest that the trustees could have kept the fund open for such cases. That would have been impossible for the trustees and would have negated the point of the closure, which was to allow time to process the cases in hand.
The trustees have worked tirelessly for the independence of disabled people. I should not like a misunderstanding of the problems of processing DLA to cast doubt on the high regard with which Ministers hold them. Payments from the fund are not social security benefit payments, so there is no entitlement to them.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister is not accurately reflecting my comments. I said that it appeared that the Government were blaming the trustees for the problem, which clearly was so in the other place but now has been clarified. Although the fund is a charitable trust and there is no right to the money, if some individuals' applications for DLA had been processed they might have been eligible for payment under the fund. They have been denied the opportunity to have their applications assessed. The Government have a duty to compensate those people for the administrative chaos that the Government have caused.

Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am happy that he has cleared up the position in relation to trustees.
The closure of the independent living fund did not leave those disabled people without redress or support. As always, the local authority maintains its overriding responsibility for disabled people. The independent living fund was set up to supplement existing care. Despite its closure, people could still go back to their local authority, and those who qualified are able to apply to the new fund. There is no possibility of any form of compensation or backdating for a fund whose payments are discretionary.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister will recognise that his statement will cause widespread disappointment and some anger—I certainly feel some anger. Surely, if someone is disqualified from applying for ILF help because the shutter comes down on 25 November, and at that stage his DLA application is caught in the logjam, and if he subsequently applies and receives help three or four months later, there would seem to be a prima facie case for saying that he has been deprived of lLF during that period


by the logjam and by the administrative inefficiency with which cases were processed. Surely that adds up to some claim for compensation under any form of common law.

Mr. Burt: No, I do not think it does. The fund always had to set eligibility limits depending on the pressure on it. The reason for the closure was the build-up in the backlog of cases—it could not possibly have processed any more of them. I repeat: I am not aware of any mechanism to allow compensation to be claimed for a discretionary fund.
I should like now to deal with the meat of the argument—whether setting up the new fund and the extension of the old fund in any way limits the opportunities for severely disabled people. I found extraordinary the degree of suspicion expressed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and other Opposition Members—suspicion of the expertise of those in local authorities charged with putting community care into effect. The whole idea of community care has been to carry forward the ideas of greater empowerment for all people who might need some form of assistance—hence the idea of care packages. The forces embodied in the success of the ILF—the tailoring of need and response to that need—are the very forces that have already shaped and will continue to shape community care for all. That is why the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from the community care package around it, and it is why the premise of the hon. Member for Huddersfield and others was wrong.

Mr. Sheerman: When I made that point I quoted bodies that were of that mind, including the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Services. If they do not know their onions, I suspect that the Minister does not know his.

Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind that this debate started with an admission by the Opposition of how wrong they got the original ILF, I suggest that they are wrong again. As they have spent most of the time apologising for being wrong about the first case I am not prepared to take lessons from them about this one. I have put the matter straight, and I shall deal with it again when we come to the facts and figures.
Opposition Members have displayed a fundamental misconception about how community care and the independent living fund fit together.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to take the Labour party seriously on issues of empowerment, discretionary funding and discretionary care, its members would have to start by supporting fund holding for general practitionersu—a good example—and continue by supporting the social fund?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes his own point. We have heard a number of references to the Conservative party manifesto—often light-hearted references from Opposition Members. We have not heard many references to Labour's manifesto because the Opposition have already torn it up. We remain, as always, interested in further policy developments. The Opposition seem to get closer and closer, week by week, to policies espoused and put into practice by the Conservative party.
To return to the central point—the relationship of the independent living funds and the community care proposals, we must put the Bill's proposals in the context of other developments in the cash provision for disabled

people. In January 1990 the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), published "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People". He announced that the Government saw three main strategic strands in policy on benefits for disabled people. The first was to improve the balance of benefits available to people unable to work, and in particular to do more for those disabled from birth or from early in life. The second was to help those disabled people who could and wished to work by making it easier for them to take up and keep jobs. The third was to improve for those of working age and below the coverage of help with the extra cost associated with disability.
We have demonstrated that the independent living fund was set up to provide a supplement to the existing care provision. We all knew that care provision was moving on, in ways in which many hon. Members, implicitly and explicitly, have approved. That means the creation of a better relationship between the individual looking for care and assistance and those who are pledged to provide it. We have moved some way from the old ideas of the recipient of care being simply that—a non-participant of whatever was given.

Mr. Dewar: We are going back to that.

Mr. Burt: I do not believe that we are and I hope to be able to deal with that as I go on.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that things have moved on and that the new ILF will be a top-up provision to help people with a certain level of disability to stay in the community and not move from their homes. However, it has not been properly explained why that top up should not be available to the over-65s.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me again. I shall come to that point.
It has been suggested that, in some way, local authority services take away choice from the individual. That suggestion negates the concept behind community care. Local authorities and those who provide the services have also moved on. They are providing people who will look at those in need of care as individuals and set up the right sort of package for them. One example used is that of an individual who had an independent living fund grant and who was able to ask a carer to do particular tasks. The individual was not bound by a local authority job specification but could work at the behest and need of those in receipt of the independent living fund grant.
That is community care that is intended to work for the individual, who, being assessed to stay at home, if that is the best provision for him, will find himself able to have exactly that. So much of what used to be provided through the independent living fund for a section of the population is now provided for by community care. That is why the independent living fund can be reduced to provide only for the categories of people whom we have mentioned. Community care does the job for others. To see the independent living fund outside the context of community care, as so many Opposition Members have done tonight, is not right. That is why they have been fundamentally misled.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burt: I should like to make some further progress, because I have a number of questions to answer.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke of the worry about sheer practicalities. He asked why, when up to now disabled people have been dealing with only one agency, they should have to deal with the local authority as well. The premise was not based on fact. The majority of disabled people getting help from the independent living fund were also receiving support services from their local authority, and so have always been in contact with two sets of social workers. Therefore, it is much better for the entire package of care to be discussed between the parties concerned. The disabled person will benefit from having a complete personalised package of care.
The 1993 fund will work, as the circular to local authorities explains, by ensuring that all the eligible clients will be people already in touch with their local authority. The social worker assessing the person's needs will say, "You are in the right age group—16 to 65—you are getting the top rate of DLA care component, your income is insufficient to meet your care needs, you need help which will be assessed at roughly, say,£400 a week. That means that you might be eligible for help from the 1993 fund. Do you want to make an application?" The social worker and client will then apply to the fund. The fund's social worker and the local authority social worker will make a joint visit to the client. All three will then agree what package of care is to be provided.
It has been suggested that there may be great disagreement but there is no reason why that should be the case. People are now working to see that the individual needs of those in need of care are provided for. That is in the great spirit of co-operation, about which we hear so much from the Opposition when they are in the business of defending local authorities. They say often that local authorities can do the job. In relation to the disabled, they will be able to do that, and we shall back them.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe also asked what would happen about appeals and complaints. That is a fair question. Since April 1991, local authorities have been required to operate complaints procedures in relation to their social services functions. If an individual is dissatisfied with the outcome of the local authority assessment, he can make use of that procedure, which includes referral of the complaint to a panel with independent members if necessary.
Should cash payments be provided? We feel that the partnership arrangement between the individual, the fund and the local authority means that the individual has more not less choice as a total package of care is agreed, rather than some random services being provided by the local authority with a cash top-up from the fund. We do not believe that it is appropriate that the local authority should be able to make cash payments to individuals. There are difficulties in determining which clients would be eligible and in controlling costs. The need to develop funding and monitoring mechanisms is likely to lead to a bureaucratic and inflexible system.
The Government have given careful consideration to local authority payments and we have decided that at this stage it would not be wise to introduce such a provision. However, I see no reason for that to be an irreversible decision. I think I shall be responding to the mood of the House by keeping a close and careful eye on this issue for the future.

Mr. Sheerman: Unless the Minister was asleep when I made my speech, as he obviously is in his own, he should surely respond to those who have asked, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), why such a scheme can be permissible in Scotland but not in England. He should explain why we in England and Wales cannot have cash payments. Why is such a system bureaucratic and cumbersome?

Mr. Burt: I have given the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall examine extremely carefully the possibility of introducing cash payments in future. At the moment, we are not convinced that it is the right thing to do. Some local authorities find ways of making small cash payments, and that may be the position in Scotland. It is for local authorities to ensure that they keep such payments within bounds.
Some hon. Members have asked whether moneys could be given to charities or trusts to enable them to do the work. When the full flexibility of community care is understood, some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members will disappear. The objective of community care, and the way in which it can work with the ILF, is to enable local authorities to provide services up to a cost of £200 a week, with £300 available as extra top-up, but they need not be provided by the local authority. A local authority must simply ensure that £200-worth of services are provided, but that could be done through an independent provider. Indeed, the one provider could supply the £500-worth of services. The degree of individualisation and flexibility was not previously understood.
Opposition Members seem to be confused about the responsibilities of the 1993 fund and those of local authorities. The ILF did not remove any responsibilities from local authorities and nor does the 1993 fund. The 1993 fund simply provides an additional option for a particular client group—those aged between 16 and 65 years with care needs amounting to between £200 and £500 a week. People who do not fall into that group—that is those over 65 or those with needs that amount to less than £200 or more than £500 a week—will remain the responsibility of the local authority. For the majority of the severely disabled who do not fall into the special group for whom the 1993 fund was intended, the local authority will consider with the client what is the best way of providing or buying in care services. It is untrue to suggest that authorities will opt to pay £800 or £1,000 to place somebody in residential care when such expenditure, or less, could support that individual in the community.
In gist, if somebody is over 65 or is looking for care that will cost more than £500 a week, the local authority will be able to provide the individual care package that the ILF used to be able to supplement when community care did not exist. Opposition Members seem beset with the idea that our proposals should be considered outwith community care. They should understand that the community care individualisation package does the job for the vast majority of people who used to benefit from the ILF. That is why the concerns of Opposition Members are out of place.
In setting up the ILF extension and the 1993 fund, the Government are anxious to reassure those who are now on the ILF that they will be able to receive their new payments—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester—and notice nothing different—no change—except the name on the cheque. For the rest, the new fund


will deal with a much smaller group of people, perhaps only 10 per authority, so the degree of bureaucratic difficulty will not be as great as Opposition Members suggest.
There have been dealings with local authorities. I am convinced that the system will be a great success. I am convinced that, just as Opposition Members have now admitted that they made an error in denying the success of the original ILF, in years to come they will recognise that they have made an error tonight and will acknowledge that this is a good Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DISABILITY (GRANTS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Disability (Grants) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants to—

(a) the Independent Living (Extension) Fund established by a deed dated 25th February 1993 and made between the Secretary of State for Social Security of the one part and Robin Glover Wendt and John Fletcher Shepherd of the other part,
(b) the Independent Living (1993) Fund established by a deed of the same date made between the same parties, and
(c) Motability.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) and Order [26 February],

HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Orcargo Limited, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

OFFICIAL SECRETS

That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — National Health Service (Charges)

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are to be taken simultaneously. They have not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. You will appreciate that the timetabling of these statutory instruments for today is an imposition by the Government, not a request of the Opposition. It is quite unfair of the Government to impose them before the Select Committee set up by the House to examine statutory instruments and report back on any defects has had an opportunity to do its work. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, like me, will deprecate the Government's attitude in what is, in my view, a misuse of time and for denying the Committee the opportunity to do its work.

Madam Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he will appreciate that the motions are in order—otherwise, they would not have appeared on the Order Paper for debate today.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 418), dated 2nd March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled
I understand that it will be convenient also to consider motion No. 6—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 419), dated 2nd March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled
and motion No. 7—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 420), dated 2nd March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled.
I remind the House of the words you used, Madam Speaker, when you ruled on the manner in which the increases in charges had been announced to the world. You deprecated the way in which the Government had used the procedures of the House to make the announcement, without the opportunity to question Ministers on the regulations. Tonight, I deprecate the fact that the Secretary of State is not here, willing to answer for the Government questions about the increases.
We deprecate the substance of the announcement—the shameful and disgraceful increases in prescription charges, in charges for eye tests and spectacles, and in dental charges. The idea of charging the sick more in order to protect the rich more is a disgraceful act by a Government who have no morality. The increases hit at the most vulnerable people in the country—those who fall just above the income exemption levels or just outside the specific exemption levels. They and others would wish us tonight to question the Secretary of State if she were here, if she had bothered to turn up to defend Government policy, if she were not like Mary Poppins, leaving it to the No. 2 to answer for Government policy and if she were not ducking out of answering for what is a disgraceful act by a Government who know no shame. The Government are


prepared, through increased prescriptions, to charge those suffering from cystic fibrosis, arachnoiditis, or chronic asthma or who—week in, week out—must take medication for blood pressure.
When that matter was raised with the Minister of State on a recent edition of BBC's "Question Time", he had the temerity to mislead the studio audience and viewers about whether cystic fibrosis was exempt from charging policy. Only last week I received a letter from a Mr. Brian Mott, who wrote to the Minister asking him to put the record straight. I ask the Minister to do so tonight.
Those young adults—and thankfully there are more of them—who reach the age when they qualify for prescription charges, and who previously would have died but for medical science, are compelled, if they have any income over and above the stringent exemption limits, to pay charges. Is it not time that people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases were exempt from paying? Is it not time that the Government had the courage to admit that they were wrong and to widen the exemption limits? Will the Government allay tonight the fear that, far from increasing the number of prescriptions on the exemption list, they have every intention, either in tomorrow's Budget or in the autumn Budget, of reducing the number? Will the Minister of State make it clear tonight that those rumours are incorrect and that the Government will not tax even more of those who are sick or in need of support or help or of remedial action in order to protect the rich? That is what it amounts to.
One remains untouched by the regulations if one has a good job, good income, good health, good sight and good teeth—and one is lucky enough to have a family and friends who are also blessed in equal proportion in those respects. However, if one is in need of regular prescriptions or medication, one will be dealt with quite differently. Instead of the £14,000 a year gain that those earning more than £70,000 a year enjoy under Conservative tax changes, those most in need are taxed because they happen to be sick.
Raising prescription charges by eight times the rate of inflation—2,100 per cent. since 1979—in the course of 15 changes was done after a promise by the former Prime Minister, the guru of the new right, who on 18 April 1979 said:
We have no intention to raise prescription charges.
Pardon my bad English, but those were the words of the former Prime Minister. In the same speech she said:
Let me make it clear that the Conservative party has no plans for new NHS charges.
Will the Minister of State repeat the former Prime Minister's promise?
We are mindful tonight that the Government are on the point of breaking a second promise. Having broken their promise not to increase prescription charges from 20p, they are undoubtedly looking—and have already made it clear from the Treasury—to increase charges so that those receiving NHS treatment will pay for the service rather than taxpayers as a whole.
Why is the Secretary of State not prepared to respond tonight? The answer is simple. Just over 20 years ago, in "Poverty Pamphlet No. 8", she made her position clear. She spelt out why it was that people could not afford the 20p that they were then asked to pay towards their prescriptions. She quoted one mother as saying:

It's a waste of his time and mine".
She was referring to visiting the doctor, because the family could not afford it. The pamphlet went on to say:
one harassed mother said 'Eight mothers said that they could not afford the twenty pence prescription charge, and were shopping around the market for home-made cures for minor ailments.'
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State, who is so timorous—so unusually timorous; so remarkably timorous—that she will not stand up and answer those questions at the end of my speech. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has turned up, albeit late—less like Mary Poppins than like Cinderella at the ball.
Millions of people are concerned about the changes that we are discussing tonight, and about the way in which they are expected to pay the price of the Conservative Government's failure to deal with the economy. The Government have had to raise charges rather than taxes; they are unwilling to fund from general taxation what should rightly be a benefit for those who need medication most. Not only have they failed to keep promises and to protect people who need the occasional prescription; they have failed to protect those who need multiple regular prescriptions, week in, week out. That is why we are praying against the regulations.
A 50p increase per prescription may seem very little to people who earn vast sums out of the hard work of others. It may seem very little to Conservative Members. For many people, however, it will represent a major burden on their income. Three or four prescriptions will constitute a large imposition on those who are struggling just above income support levels, with just enough income to keep their families together. Such people are often on part-time earnings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): What about the poll tax in Sheffield?

Mr. Blunkett: All that we get from Conservative Members are cheap remarks about people paying their poll tax. The poll tax and the prescription charge have one thing in common: they do not take from the rich, but they load disadvantages on to the poor. They are an alternative form of taxation. The most regressive taxation taxes those in specific need of medication while alleviating the position of those who could well afford to pay for that medication.
It is worse than that, however. It is nonsensical in itself for someone receiving one form of exemption to be exempt from everything, and for those who are not exempt to have to pay everything. Why should people suffering from cystic fibrosis not be exempt, while those suffering from ailments that are already exempt find that everything else falls into place?
Only this morning, I received a letter from a Mrs. Forbes of Aberdeen. Her son, aged 28, has cystic fibrosis, and is struggling for life. She is fortunate, because he is exempt—not because of the major life-threatening ailment from which he suffers, but because of a related problem that enables him to receive prescriptions. It is nonsensical; everyone knows that. The system needs to be changed, and the amounts that people are paying need to be frozen. Tonight, however, we are debating a 50p increase, and the draconian weighting of that increase on those who can least afford it.
Why are we debating the issue on the eve of the Budget? The answer is simple: the Government are not prepared


—as they were not when they made the announcement—to stand up in the light of day and the public arena, knowing that they will be reported, and argue their case. They know that that case is wrong; they know that the charge should not be levied, and that they are being unfair to those who are least able to defend themselves.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): From 1 April the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1993, the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Amendment Regulations 1993 and their Scottish equivalents introduce responsible increases in NHS prescription charges and in the maximum and proportional charges for dental treatment. Those charges will be paid only by people who can afford to contribute to the cost of their treatment and medication.
The existing wide-ranging exemptions and remission for people who cannot afford prescription charges are unchanged. No child, no expectant or nursing mother, no state retirement pensioner and no one on income support or family credit pays a charge. They and the people who get free prescriptions because they are exempt on medical grounds or are on a low income are unaffected by the 50p increase.
I shall set the regulations in context. NHS spending is at an all-time high. The gross provision for 1993–94 is over £37 billion, a real terms increase over this year and up by 61 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. To put it another way, we are spending just over £100 million a day on the national health service. That amounts to £649 for every man, woman and child compared in equivalent constant prices with £417 when the last Labour Government left office.
In 1992–93, £19 of every £20 spent on the NHS will be met from taxes and national insurance contributions. It is estimated that less than 4 per cent. will be met from all the charges in the NHS put together. Nevertheless, that 4 per cent. is not insignificant in terms of better patient care. From 1 April the proposed increase in prescription charges from £3·75 to £4·25 will raise about £278 million a year for the NHS in England alone. Opposition Members may be interested to know that that would fund the building of about seven 300-bed district general hospitals and their running costs, or over 70,000 hip replacement operations or more than 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Not long ago I wrote to the Minister about a constituent with a chronic disease. The reply that I got only a week or so ago was basically that if the Government gave her an exemption they would need to exempt people with cancer, with dialysis problems, with diabetes—the lot. Does not the Minister realise that our hospital bill will increase if people cannot afford the medicine that will keep them out of hospital? An increase of 50p will deny proper medicine to people on low wages and they will end up in hospital costing £600 to £2,000 a week. Is that the way that the Minister want to go?

Dr. Mawhinney: Of course, there must be some truth in the hon. Gentleman's general proposition, but he was not listening to me. I said that those on low income were exempt from charges. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is not valid.
On average, people who pay prescription charges receive six items a year on prescription. The new prescription charge, which is still much less than the average total cost of a prescribed item to the NHS, will cost such people £3 a year more than they are paying this year. For the minority who pay charges and who are heavier than average users of prescribed items, the prescription prepayment certificates offer real savings. The new proposed cost of four-monthly and annual prescription prepayment certificates will be £22 and £60 respectively. As hon. Members know, other charges will be increased by a percentage similar to the rise in prescription charges.
Perhaps Opposition Members would like to suggest which of our planned improvements in NHS services next year they would like to cut to make up the shortfall. Such cuts would take place without providing any benefit for the least-well-off because they do not pay prescription charges. The charging structure recognises people's differing ability to pay. Four out of every five prescribed items are now dispensed free—more than at any time since the Labour Government reintroduced prescription charges in 1968. When Labour last left power in 1979, only three out of five prescriptions were dispensed free.
We propose to increase the maximum charge for a course of dental treatment which starts on or after 1 April this year from £225 to £250. I noticed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not mention dental charges, so I am grateful to him for his support on this aspect of the regulations. That increase will affect less than 1 per cent. of adult courses of treatment. At the same time, the proportion that a patient contributes to the cost of a course of dental treatment will increase from 75 to 80 per cent. Increases in the proportional and maximum charges for dental treatment will raise an estimated £17 million for the national health service in England in 1993–94 and about £25 million in a full year. And £25 million is equivalent to the annual cost of about 250 general dental practitioners.
As with prescription charges, only those who can afford to do so are asked to contribute towards the cost of their dental treatment. All treatment to those under 18 years of age is free and some 21 per cent. of adult courses of treatment are free. Many others on low incomes get treatment at reduced rates. We are seeking to encourage a positive attitude and changed habits to dental care through the provision of free dental treatment for children and the continuing care which the new contract for dentists introduced for all adults.
Since the introduction of the new contract, more people are coming forward for dental treatment and registering with a dentist. Adult registrations at 31 January were more than 21 million, an increase of 3·3 per cent. since 1 July 1992. More courses of treatment are being undertaken on these people. That does not sound to me like a system under which people are so scared of charges that they put off going to the dentist.
Finally, the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1993, together with, their Scottish equivalents, increase the value of optical vouchers by an average of 2·75 per cent. Once again this increase is in excess of the current rate of inflation and should preserve the real terms value of the vouchers. About 34 per cent. of the population are entitled to optical vouchers, including children under 16, students under 19, people on income support or family credit,


others on low incomes and people who need certain complex lenses. Expenditure on the optical voucher scheme costs the NHS about £100 million a year.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Will the Minister be kind enough to explain to the House what he means by "low income" before people have to pay?

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. It relates to qualification for existing social security benefits.
Last year, from 1 April, we carried out a wholesale redefinition of voucher bands. This increased the value of voucher A, the most common voucher, by over 20 per cent. and the majority of customers are considerably better off.
The hon. Member for Brightside set out the Opposition's current position on prescription charges. Year by year during the 1980s the Opposition attacked the Government for asking the limited number of people who actually pay prescription charges to contribute more. Year by year, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) attempted to convince the world that he was outraged. Year by year he won his sound bite on the evening news, so when the time came to write the election manifestos, Conservative Members rushed to have a look at what the Opposition would say and see how they would use this opportunity to put their principles into practice. We looked for their pledge to reverse the rises in prescription charges which they had so vehemently opposed. We looked in vain. Labour devoted two pages of its manifesto to health, but, in all that space, it had precisely nothing to say about prescription charges. The hon. Member for Brightside had nothing to say about them this evening. He was but a poor, pale imitation of the hon. Member for Livingston—and we know where he progressed to.
Of course, in their manifesto, the Opposition were willing to remove £500 million from patient care to fund the minimum wage proposals, so beloved of their union sponsors, but even they baulked at having to remove another £240 million by scrapping prescription charges. Unless the hon. Member for Brightside is able to do better than he has this evening, the pages of his speech and all the words that he will pour forth in sound bites tomorrow and in the weeks to come will wind up in the same paper shredder as the words of the hon. Member for Livingston. The hon. Member for Brightside is trying to have it both ways—outrage but no guts to make a commitment that he would reverse the changes that we are announcing tonight.
All Governments have to make choices. We are committed to increasing spending on the NHS and our record is significantly better that than of the Opposition. However, we also have to balance the needs of the service against finite resources. Available resources should be directed at the greater need. The charges for dental treatment and prescriptions, which will apply from 1 April, are a small but nevertheless important contribution towards the funding of the NHS and will continue to be paid only by those who can afford that contribution.
The public understand the usefullness of a limited additional contribution to the NHS from those who can afford it. Their concern is not to engage in party political point scoring, especially of the spurious type so beloved of

Labour politicians, but to have the best possible national health service. Those who share the public concern should vote against the motions.

Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the chance to debate the issues, but not the increases in prescription or dental charges. I welcome the increase in the value of the voucher, although' it does not go far enough.
This is the 15th rise in prescription charges since 1979. There has been a horrendous increase of 2,000 per cent., a 13 per cent. increase on current levels and, at the same time, an increase of only 1 per cent. in real terms in the whole national health service budget. How can the Government justify a 13 per cent. increase in prescription charges but a real terms increase of only 1 per cent. in the NHS budget? So much for the NHS being free at the point of delivery.
How many more people will be put off going to their general practitioner for a prescription? The pharmaceutical industry has said that increases could be dangerous because many patients will have to choose between which prescription they collect. I know of people in my constituency who have already had to choose between painkillers and antibiotics. Of course, they opt for the painkillers because they want to kill the pain, but they are storing up problems for the future. If they do not take the antibiotics, they will cause long-term problems which will cost the health service more. The Government's attitude is, therefore, very short-sighted.
The Minister has just said that those who cannot afford to pay will not pay, but I disagree. Many people on very low incomes will not be able to afford to pay. They will not be included in the exemptions and they are not included at the moment. For example, students who receive loans are not exempt. Many students do not get free prescriptions, free eye tests or any of the other free services that they used to get. Certain people on invalidity benefit, for example, will not get free prescriptions.
The citizens advice bureaux brought the case of a constituent to my attention. He has to have medication to thin his blood and he cannot get that medication free. The medical exemptions were probably good enough when they were drawn up in 1968, but they must now be changed. I urge the Government to look at the matter seriously and to extend the list of medical exemptions to cover the advances in medicine in the past few years. My constituent might then be included in such a list of exemptions.
I know that the drugs bill is large—nobody disputes that. I know that the Government have said that we cannot afford the present drugs bill. Perhaps we should consider other areas, such as over-prescribing. I know that the Minister has done some work on that, which I welcome. Some general practitioners over-prescribe and issue repeat prescriptions far too often. GPs should also consider referring people for alternative medicine instead of putting them on to particular drugs. I understand that GPs can already do that under extra-contractual referrals, but I believe that many GPs are not aware that they can do that and I should like the Government to make GPs more aware that alternative medicine is available. That could mean that a patient could be referred for chiropractic, for example, instead of being given drugs.
Dental charges are up by 6·7 per cent. I know that that increase is not as great as the increase in prescription charges and I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies; personally, I do not think that we should be. The patient's contribution is up from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. As the Minister said, the maximum payable has increased from £225 to £250. In the past few years, NHS dentistry has been damaged beyond repair. Some dentists already refuse to take NHS patients. The regulations will make it even more difficult for patients to get treatment.
I have heard of a child in my constituency—I am looking into the case at the moment, so I do not know how true it is—who has been refused NHS treatment for a brace. She is a fairly young child and her father has brought the case to my attention. These regulations will not help patients to go to the dentist. Many people refuse to go to the dentist now for check-ups because they cannot afford it.
Then we turn to vouchers for glasses. The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, in a survey in 1992, found that the cheapest spectacles were £38·55 inclusive of VAT. The voucher was £23·70 and has gone up to £24·40. Where is the £14·15 to come from for those who need glasses and who are supposed to be getting them free? The voucher does not cover the cost of the spectacles.
A mother in my constituency has talked for the past few years to me and to anyone who will listen about her daughter, who keeps falling and breaking her glasses. She can get them repaired, but the voucher does not cover the cost completely. Each time her daughter falls and breaks her spectacles, she has to go to the optician and top up the money over and above the voucher. That is not good enough.

Dr. Mawhinney: May I point out to the hon. Lady that the most recent survey of spectacle retailers showed that 50 per cent. of retailers were able to offer spectacles at within the voucher value?

Ms Lynne: But 50 per cent. is nothing like enough. If one does not live in a constituency where——

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Lady realise that I represent a rural constituency and that if my people had to keep running into the centre of town for prescriptions, they would pay pounds and pounds in transport costs—if they were lucky enough to get a bus in the first place?

Ms Lynne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health said in 1991 that people would not have to top up. I gather that he meant that they would not have to top up at all. On 11 December 1991, in the Committee that considered the National Health Service regulations, the Under-Secretary said:
The hon. Gentleman also sought reassurance that voucher values would be sufficient to permit anyone holding a voucher to have access to the purchase of spectacles without needing to pay a supplement. That is, indeed, the Government's view."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 11 December 1991; c. 14.]
Obviously it is not the Government's view any more, because the Minister refers to a figure of 50 per cent. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State think that the vouchers will cover costs in all cases? I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman could stand up at the Dispatch Box and say that, in every case, the voucher would cover the cost of spectacles.
There is real fear that people will not be able to get the treatment that they need. They will not be able to get their prescriptions. In many cases, they will not be able to get the dental care or the eye care that they need.
On 11 March 1993, Virginia Bottomley herself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"."]—the Secretary of State for Health said:
above all, the NHS will continue to offer care on the basis of need, not ability to pay.
I hope that the Government take that into account, because if the regulations go through tonight, that will certainly not be the case.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: It is always a joy to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). Whatever she tells the House, she tells it with great aplomb. The trouble is that she never tells us very much. It was most interesting to hear what the hon. Lady had to say. I refer her to a document that her party published in February 1992, entitled "Restoring the Nation's Health". The sum total of the Liberal Democrats' views on prescription charges can be paraphrased thus: the total abolition of charges is not necessarily desirable. So I ask the hon. Lady, "What is the Liberal Democrats' policy?"
Never mind the Liberal Democrats; let us deal with those on the Opposition Front Bench. A great thing happened to this nation last week. Mr. Yentob of the BBC made the cataclysmic announcement that "Eldorado" would he taken from our screens. Some of us occasionally switched on at 7 o'clock in the evening and watched totally inadequate, totally hopeless people limping from crisis to crisis, without any idea of what on earth they were doing. Where will we look now to make us look adequate? I suggest that we look at the health team on the Opposition Front Bench. I cannot attack their policy on prescriptions because I do not know what their policy is, and if I do not know what their policy is, I know that they do not know what their policy is.
In the run-up to the general election, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that Labour would freeze prescription charges and that, over time, they would decline in value.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a specific debate about the Government's proposals and has nothing to do with Opposition policies. Many hon. Members wish to catch your eye to talk about the specific proposals before us. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has spoken for some minutes now without mentioning the Government's proposals.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I usually allow a little latitude, but the word is "little". I am sure that that point will be taken on board.

Mr. Hayes: I always obey your rulings in these matters, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my constituency of Harlow, we live in a nuclear free zone. Obviously the Opposition Front Bench lives in a policy-free zone.
I was simply trying to constrast what Opposition Members have been saying with Government policy. That is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do. The Opposition spokesman did not tell us what the Opposition were going to do.

Mr. Ron Davies: Order.

Mr. Hayes: The Opposition are praying against the regulations. They should have the courage to tell us what they are going to do. The House and the general public deserve an answer, but we have not heard an answer tonight.
What did we hear from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) tonight? Perhaps he, or one of his colleagues, will tell us later what the Opposition will do. Would they freeze prescription charges or abolish them? Would they bring more money into the health service? Or is the hon. Gentleman going to continue, as the press reports that he is, to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?
In the Financial Times the hon. Member for Brightside accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for caving in to the Treasury. He said that the Government were prepared to tax the sick, not the rich. Therefore, according to the hon. Member for Brightside, my right hon. Friend is caving in to the Treasury. The proposals in the regulations involve £278 million. Is that money going to the Treasury? No, it is going directly to health care and directly to the patients. As my hon. Friend the Minister said so eloquently a moment ago, it will go to hospitals, into coronary bypasses and into reduced waiting lists. [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Member for Brightside may have said something about a policy. Is he attacking that amount of money?
The Opposition always talk about cuts. I talk about them as well. I remember the cuts in the pay of doctors and nurses under the last Labour Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The subjects of tonight's debate are the regulations that make increases. Those regulations are being prayed against. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) should consider the pros and cons of the proposals.

Mr. Hayes: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I thought it only fair, right and proper to put the record straight. The trouble is that the Opposition have no policy that we can attack. They have all the balance of a wet blancmange.
Hon. Members have asked me to consider the achievements in the drugs budget. We are talking about more than £2·3 billion being spent every year. Opposition Members said that we are taxing the sick and the poor. Four out of five prescriptions are free. They are free if one is pregnant, a child, elderly, or in receipt of income support. The provisions are the most generous in the western world. If the Opposition had any decency or honesty, they would admit that.
I do not want to provoke any of my Conservative colleagues who might be regarded as the gnomes of Maastricht—mercifully they are not here tonight—but perhaps I can refer to Europe. The Opposition are great at praying in aid what happens in Europe. Let us consider what happens in Europe.

Mr. Ron Davies: Order.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may say, "Order", but my point is directly relevant to the debate. The Opposition tell us what happens in Europe and what should happen in this country in relation to Europe. They tell us how much money we should be spending vis-a-vis Europe. Perhaps I

can remind hon. Members what happens in Europe. The German Government intend to reduce the drugs budget by 5 per cent. It is the intention of this Government——

Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) trying to address the 50p increase in prescription charges that the Government have imposed on the people of this country or is he auditioning for a part in "Eldorado"?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to judge the quality of any contribution.

Mr. Hayes: I am deeply grateful for that.
We are talking about a 50p increase for many people who are not poor, frail or most in need. It is the equivalent of two copies of the Daily Mirror, if anyone in his right mind wishes to read the Daily Mirror and I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) is in his right mind.
Spain and Britain are the only EC countries to exempt pensioners from prescription charges. German pensioners have 6·25 of their state pension deducted. In socialist France, with 3 million unemployed, pensioners are expected to pay £4·60p a day for hospital charges, and in Belgium pensioners pay up to 25 per cent. of a doctor's consultation fee. What are the Opposition praying against? A 50p increase in the charge? We are talking about £278 million that is going not into the hands of the Treasury but directly into patient care. I cannot understand, and I doubt whether the general public can possibly comprehend, what on earth they are complaining about.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to add my voice to those who object to a tax on the sick. I do not think that the poor or sick will gain any comfort from the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), and certainly not from the Minister's hard and unfeeling speech. He presented an almost Dickensian figure at the Dispatch Box. Far from protecting those who are on low incomes and need medication, the Government have placed an intolerable burden on them. The Minister tried to defend the indefensible, which probably accounted for his rather heartless rhetoric.
Fourteen months ago, I introduced the Health Benefits Bill, which would have exempted from prescription charges all people in receipt of other benefits. Conservative Members do not realise or recognise that people who claim poll tax benefit, housing benefit, invalidity benefit or disablement benefit are not entitled to free prescriptions, yet their low incomes are recognised by the fact that they need help with such basic needs as housing. The Minister was challenged about the level of incomes of people who are in receipt of benefits, but he did not have an idea. I do not think that he lives in the same world as anybody else.
My Bill would have exempted from prescription charges anybody who was diagnosed as chronically sick. It seems eminently sensible that if people have chronic illnesses the least a caring society should do is to ensure that they have free medication. It would have exempted people requiring long-term medication, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred, such as those with chronic bowel disease. A constituent of mine has Crohn's disease. He


received an increase in benefit of just 8 per cent., which took him above the level at which he could get free prescriptions. He needs them weekly—all the time, in fact. So he ended up with a cut in his weekly income of £3.
I wish that the Minister had taken more notice of my Bill, which would have taken care of such people. Those with asthma, multiple sclerosis and cancer do not automatically get free prescriptions.
One of the saddest categories of people whom the Government continually ignore is that of the mentally ill. I have a great deal of contact with a self-help group in Halifax. The group is for people who have suffered from a mental illness, and it is called Calderdale Survivors Speak Out. Its members would clearly tell the Minister about their friends who, when faced with electricity and other bills, often pay the bills but do without their medication. They then get progressively worse and end up back in hospital, costing the system a lot more than if they had had free prescriptions in the first place. It is obvious to all that such people will be badly affected by the increase proposed tonight.
The Bill that I presented drew attention to the help that may be derived from the health benefits scheme. Those benefits are for dental and optical charges, and for travel costs—but they offer little or no help with prescriptions. In practice, the scheme does not meet its objectives. It is terribly bureaucratic, and thousands of people are deterred from claiming health benefits because of the scheme's complexity.
I sent the Minister a copy of the form that people are expected to fill in to claim back small amounts. Its 20 pages contain 50 questions. Not surprisingly, there was no reply from the Minister.
In reply to a question from a Conservative Member almost two years ago, the Secretary of State for Health promised:
During 1991, the Department of Health will undertake a review of the administration of the low income scheme. The review will produce proposals by the end of 1991 for simplifying the claim form AG1 and other administrative procedures."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 530.]
Nearly two years on, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State to do something about this complex and wasteful system.
The system has failed. Almost 1 million people a year try to get help through it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said last year that almost 100,000 people a year go to them for help to fill in the forms. Even so, 35 per cent. of all forms are sent back to the claimants because they are incorrectly completed.
The Government have a duty to tell us tonight what they intend to do about the health benefits scheme. It offers some help, but it is so complex that it is failing to help those who need it most.
I felt ashamed this evening to hear the Minister trying to defend the £4·25 that the Government now charge for each prescription. The Minister talked about the last Labour Government. The charge was 20p in 1979. The Minister cannot defend an increase that attacks the most vulnerable people in society—who go without the treatments that they require because the Government have callously decided to tax the sick.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: There is no question but that our national health service is the finest in the world. It is the envy of the world and many people from all over the world come here to examine in great detail the way in which we handle it. Perhaps because it is the best in the world, it is one of the most costly and the taxpayer does not have a bottomless pit of money. The Government do not have any money at all. What they have is taxpayers' money, which they have to circulate——

Mr. Jim Dowd: Do not be stupid.

Mr. Dickens: I am not being stupid. The Government have to recirculate the money and spend it in a wise way, to the benefit of everyone.
I suspect that, if I were in opposition, I might be praying against the regulations. However, I would not be doing it for genuine reasons—I would be doing it to make political advantage, as the Opposition are doing this evening. If only four out of five people pay for prescriptions, aid must be targeted on those in greatest need. It is marvellous that not one pensioner nor person on income support has to pay for a prescription.
I feel sorry for some people—those who are in the narrow band of the poverty trap. They are considered too rich to get any benefits, but they are often a little too poor to keep paying ever-increasing prices. We appreciate that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I often used to get letters from people saying that they would willingly pay more tax to do something about this or that. I would write saying that my local hospital would be grateful to receive a donation towards various units, but those units never got any money from my constituents. Sometimes, such claims are false.
People are nervous about their health and they should be pleased that we have such a wonderful health service. I do not want to make a long contribution, because I know that some—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] Well, in that case, I will. Many hon. Members wish to speak. We have had some thoughtful contributions.
I congratulate my very dear friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health on what they are doing for the health service. Many of our reforms, which cost an awful lot of money, meet initial opposition. All the medics were up in arms and against reforms, but now they are rushing to be budget holders and to be part of an NHS trust. They can see the benefits, but those benefits have to be paid for. As the Secretary of State and the Minister realise that throwing resources at everything is not always the answer, they have introduced streamlining and efficiency. That is why we have such a great health service.
Each and every hon. Member should be honest. We have something very precious. They must not whinge and run it down. If those who can afford have to pay a little more, they should remember that the money will not go to build motorways. It will go into the NHS for further patient care. Who knows, the constituents who write to Opposition Members may need that care and they will thank God that we have a health service. Perhaps they will even thank Him that we charge those who can pay just a little more. We should remember that some people can get a season ticket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members asked me to continue.
You know me and my generous disposition, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not take advantage of all those who want to continue to rubbish the health service. One day, Opposition Members, or their constituents, might be glad of the NHS. They should thank God—I know that they are praying against the regulations—that they are fortunate enough to live in the United Kingdom, comforted by a health service second to none—I defy anybody to tell me of a better one—paid for by the taxpayer. He pays for new techniques, new operations and procedures that were not even thought of only a few years ago. We are delivering them now.
Hon. Members should remember that ours is the best health service in the world. I shall now be fair and let others speak in the debate.

11 pm

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), who is no longer in his place, was clowning, as usual. His feet were planted firmly in the air. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) followed the example of his hon. Friend and we heard the same nonsensical rhetoric.
The Opposition are not arguing that the moneys collected from prescription charges will not go to the health service. We are not saying that they will go to the Treasury. We are arguing that the moneys, if necessary, should come from the Treasury. We are engaged in an economic debate because with the rundown in the economy the health service can no longer be funded properly. We are not talking about where the moneys that will be collected from the outrageous increases will be spent. We simply say that the increases are outrageous. After all, we are faced with a current charge of £3·75.
I take four forms of medication a day for a minor ailment. Under the Government's proposal, I would be faced with a charge of £17. I am extremely fortunate because I can afford that.

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman cared to buy a season ticket, the charge would be £22 for three months.

Mr. Boyce: That is right. I could afford that. In fact, I have a season ticket. The Minister should understand, however, that some people would not be able to afford a charge of £17, let alone £22. People are having to make choices and I doubt whether they are going without their medicine. Indeed, they could not do so. That means that they do not spend on other things. If the poll tax suffers—their payments—they will be hounded. They will be put under pressure for the non-payment of an iniquitous tax. We know that all Conservative Members voted in favour of that pernicious tax and imposed it on working people.
Earlier, I asked the Minister about the level of benefits. The hon. Gentleman said that I should be aware of it. I am only too well aware. After all, it was a rhetorical question. We are talking about those who are slightly above income support level, who are the poorest in society. I knew the answer to my question.
There will be a time of reckoning. The time will come when the Conservative party will have to account for all the misery that it has inflicted on ordinary people. If the Government want to find the money without increasing

charges—my opinion may not be shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—they should scrap the nuclear arms programme.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am astounded that the poor and the sick of our nation are expected to pay increased prescription charges. I never thought that the Government would have the audacity once again to increase the charges. I listened to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), and I thought that I was listening to Jean Harlow, an actress. As for the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), what an example we present of fat, healthy people. However, we have £31,000 a year and can afford the increase in charges. Many people in my constituency cannot pay the current prescription charges.
I have written to the Department on a number of occasions, seeking exemptions for chronically sick constituents. The answers that I received were horrific; they were insensitive to the problems of sick people. How can any Health Minister say that he will not give an exemption to a chronically sick person? How can he say that he will not give an exemption to someone suffering from cancer?
A woman constituent wrote to me about her husband, who was suffering from cancer. She had to buy £16 worth of medicine a week. She did everything possible to give her husband aid and succour in his dying days. I wrote to the Minister about that case. How, for God's sake, can we inflict such pain and suffering on the sick? Can hon. Members imagine being sick, going to the chemist with four prescriptions and saying, "Pick the one I don't need"? A doctor—a professional with the skills and ability at least to try to make someone well—has written four prescriptions, but the patient cannot afford them. Hang your head in shame, Minister——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly, but would he please remember that he is addressing me, not the Minister?

Mr. Graham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, such matters get me wound up. If I do not fight for the sick and disabled, who will?
The Minister cannot get away with simply saying that the orders are the way to save £300 million in the health service. There is no saving when people are being denied proper medication because they cannot afford it. The Government should be trying to improve the provision of medication if there is a problem—and there is. There is a massive problem with thousands and thousands of constituents not getting the medication that they need. People are already suffering because of low pay; the regulations will make matters worse.
I do not want to take up parliamentary time. I am becoming so angry that I am likely to breach parliamentary order and privilege. My sick constituents deserve better from the Government. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said that there was not a bottomless pit. These regulations should be named the Bottomley pit. It is a pit of the Government seeking once again to tax the sick in our community.
There should be a new regime to look after the health of Great Britain, and under no circumstances should it be that lot sitting in the Department of Health. We do not


want anyone—Tory, Liberal, nationalist or Labour voters—to suffer the indignity of a Government driven continually by the market place, by a free market. At the end of the day, millions of people are unemployed and thousands are on low pay. We sat for weeks and weeks listening to the Government talking about a trade union reform Bill. They abolished the wages councils, so we will see the spread of low pay, which will drive people further into bad health and sickness. They will not be able to recover because they will not have enough money to pay for prescriptions—and that will be because of the Government's unthinking, uncaring and sheer heartless attitude.

Mr. John Gunnell: Even though I have been in the House only a short time, I realise that it is traditional to refer to the remarks of the previous speaker. I can truthfully say that I have never been so strongly in agreement with the speaker who immediately preceded me, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), as I am now. I will emphasise a number of his points and comment on tonight's announcement and our reaction to it. It is worth remarking on the nature of the announcement, the manner in which it was made, and the Government's defence—although I was able to agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have ceased to defend any of their proposals. The announcement was made in a matter-of-fact way, as if it were just a 50p increase. The point has already been made that prescription charges have in fact increased 2,000 per cent. under successive Conservative Governments.
The 50p rise in prescription charges represents a 13·33 percentage increase. The Government constantly boast about low inflation and the level of wage increases that should be sought—but the charges represent a 13 per cent. increase and the Government do not bat an eyelid. They think that it should be accepted without protest and query the fuss that we are making tonight.
The announcement was cynical and was delivered as though it was of little importance to anyone. The information was just slipped out. We learnt of the increase a week ago through a parliamentary procedure that did not involve a public announcement which would have allowed the public to react. The Opposition had to make it clear that the announcement had been made and to publicise it—just as it is left to the Opposition to comment on the increased charges tonight.
The Government have offered no defence. The Minister says that the poorest will be protected. Even the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out that those at the margin are in the most difficult position. The same was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde and other of my hon. Friends. To many, the increase represents a massive rise. For them, £4·25 for every prescription that they need is a lot of money. The Minister would not disagree that many people need double prescriptions and they will have to pay £1 more and a total bill of £8·50p. Many at the margin will have great difficulty paying those higher charges.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) mentioned certain categories who would suffer, such as students. I have engaged in correspondence with the Minister about a student in my constituency, who wrote to me setting out

his budget. He said that he felt that, given his income, he should not have to pay the prescription charges. He was determined to get through his college course without recourse to a student loan; as he explained in his letter, he would much prefer to be free of debt when he graduated. He was trying not to draw heavily on his parents' resources, while also trying to complete his course without a loan.
When I asked the Minister why that student was having to pay prescription charges, it was explained to me that he was being charged as if he had drawn his student loan. He had been told that he had a notional student loan. He had been lent no actual money, but the fact that a loan was available to him apparently meant that the money that he had not claimed still counted against him. That is just one small indication of the lengths to which the Government will go to penalise, in this case, a student who was determined to complete his course and be free to pursue employment—if he could find it, that is—without the hindrance of a loan.
That student was forced to pay prescription charges on the basis that he had claimed a loan that he rightly had not claimed. He is just one of a category of people for whom the imposition of extra charges will be the last straw. A 13 per cent. increase in a charge that is so important to so many people is simply not acceptable. The defence advanced for the charges has been negligible; such a level has never been justified.

Mr. Jack Thompson: An increase is now being proposed in the number of items being taken off the list that a doctor can prescribe. Those receiving the benefit of not having to pay prescription charges are now having to pay normal chemist shop prices. They are being hit twice. If they are elderly, for instance, they will get away with not paying prescription charges, but they will probably have to pay more for the same medicine than they would have paid otherwise.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which has been raised by others. I only hope that the Chancellor will not impose VAT on medicines tomorrow. I noted that the pamphlet provided by the House of Commons Library included medicines among the items that might attract VAT; certainly, many people would be affected by that. As others have pointed out, there are quite different ways in which a Minister could choose to tackle the allegations of waste in prescribing.

Mr. Barry Porter: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that our national health service is the best in the world. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which country in the western industrialised world has lower prescription charges than those proposed in the regulations and which has exemptions more generous than those provided here? There is none.

Mr. Gunnell: I shall have to refer the hon. Gentleman to the paper that I have received from the Library. What I know, however, is that the Conservatives voted against the NHS when it was set up in 1947.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, hon. Members trying to intervene must sit down.

Mr. Gunnell: I think that I have said enough to make it clear that I, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, find the scale of the increases and the way in which they have been announced unacceptable. Once again the Conservative party is proving that the NHS is not safe in its hands.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: In the few minutes that are left to me to sum up for the Opposition, it is important to return the debate to the subject of the regulations—the 13 per cent. increase in prescription charges. That is higher than the 1·5 per cent. pay increase that the Government forced on health service workers, whose lobby we saw today. The increases will take dental charges to 80 per cent. of the total cost of treatment for national health service patients. It is part of the Government's strategy to force dentistry out of the NHS.
There has been a great deal of misinformation from the Government about exemptions from charges and about who can or cannot afford to pay the increases. We should be under no illusions. The increases are a result of the Government's failed economic strategy. They are a tax on the sick to pay for the health service because the Government's economic strategy is not delivering the resources.
The increases will weigh heavily on those who just fail to qualify for the benefit that hon. Members have mentioned. Forty per cent. of the population pays national health service charges. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will reveal the information in the Government's possession about the true failure of their income and exemption schemes. The Minister wrote to Ms Ann Abraham, chief executive of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, on 16 July 1992. His letter followed the report by the association entitled "Health Warning" which pointed to the problems with the exemption scheme.
For example, people have to apply for exemption on a 19-page form. Even those who administer the scheme find the form difficult to understand and make erratic and incorrect judgments on people's entitlement. What must it seem like to people applying for needed medication? The grounds for exemption are not consistent. For instance, a pensioner is exempt from prescription charges but not from other charges. A pregnant woman can get help with most charges, but not with hospital visits. The maximum help that is available does not cover the total cost of, for example, optical charges.
The Government agreed that the system did not work and that the people they were trying to help were not helped by the system. In his letter to Ms Abraham the Minister said:
As you know, the Government has been concerned to keep the arrangements for providing help with NHS charges under close scrutiny. The decision to carry out the Review announced by my predecessor shortly before the…report…was published, reflected our concern to improve…the Scheme.
Although the Review has been completed, more detailed work is being carried out on the wider implications of…the proposals. This will assist the decision making process.
Where is that review? What does that tell us about the Government's empty promises about helping people in need? Why did they not implement the review before looking at increasing the charges?
If we need further evidence about the complications of the scheme, I refer the Minister to a letter of 10 August 1992 to Baroness Hollis about the disability working allowance—a special allowance to help disabled people get back into work. However, they are not exempt from paying prescription charges, despite the fact that they are on low incomes.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said that more people will be unable to have the medicines that they need. The president asked the Government to consider the implications—that people will be forced back to their doctors because they will have to choose between the drugs that they need instead of having them all. The British Medical Association calls this rise a tax on illness. It is illogical; it is unfair; it is discriminatory; and it bears no resemblance to the Government's rhetoric this evening. There should be no increases.

Dr. Mawhinney: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should have liked to——

Miss Joan Lestor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Minister has to ask for the permission of the House to speak again. As a Member for the House, having been disgusted by the behaviour of those who have been on the Treasury Bench during the debate, I should like to deny the Minister the opportunity to speak again. If I may give you my reasons for this——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not necessary. A single objection, when a Minister seeks leave to speak again, is sufficient.

Mrs. Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for that. A single objection is sufficient.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.[Interruption.]

Miss Lestor: Perhaps I may explain why I do not believe that the Minister should be allowed to speak again.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need to have a debate about that. A single voice uttering dissent is sufficient.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No more.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had a catalogue of whingeing and moaning and a lack of policy from the Opposition. My hon. Friends are not prepared to put with their diatribes. Time and again——

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Miss Lestor: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Miss Lestor: Yes. The right hon. Lady came in late to


this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "You weren't here, either".] Oh, yes I was. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am already dealing with a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. I do not expect to be interrupted when I am addressing the House. Objection was taken to the Minister replying to the debate. Therefore, it seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable that the Secretary of State for Health should be given the opportunity to speak.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Every week, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are 2 million more free prescriptions than there were in 1979.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. When the Secretary of State for Health stood up at the Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) was on her feet. She ought surely to have been allowed to finish what she was saying.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for me. If the criticism is of me, there is a regular way of dealing with it, which is by substantive motion tabled in the House—not now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mrs. Bottomley: The Opposition are trying to deprive the House of the opportunity of hearing the sensible reasons why we have taken these decisions.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Prentice: Is it appropriate for the Secretary of State to reply to the debate as she arrived late and did not hear all the contributions?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is for the occupant of the Chair to decide who to call.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have full confidence in the Minister. He was ably explaining to the House the reasons for the decisions, but the Opposition refused to hear them.

Mr. Morgan: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is not behaving well. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Morgan: Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, tell the House whether you have received a request for a statement on the collapse of the Government's court case between the Welsh Office——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY

SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mr. Hayes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you rule on whether there has been a gross abuse of procedure? Although the Opposition objected, properly, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State speaking, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rose to speak, they refused to hear her arguments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not appropriate for me to deal with that now. Points of order taken during a Division must relate to the Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 229, Noes 289.

Division No. 194]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Dafis, Cynog


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F.
Eastham, Ken


Benton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Dr. Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyce, Jimmy
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Garrett, John


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)






Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Olner, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Parry, Robert


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prescott, John


Jowell, Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



NOES


Adley, Robert
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Ancram, Michael
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Bates, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Bellingham, Henry
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)





Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Milligan, Stephen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve






Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sackville, Tom


Ottaway, Richard
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Page, Richard
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Paice, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Patnick, Irvine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Pawsey, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Pickles, Eric
Shersby, Michael


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sims, Roger


Porter, David (Waveney)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Rathbone, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Redwood, John
Speed, Sir Keith


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Spencer, Sir Derek


Richards, Rod
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Riddick, Graham
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Spink, Dr Robert


Robathan, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Sproat, Iain


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Steen, Anthony


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Stephen, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael





Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Walden, George
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Wessex RHA (Computer Project)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. John Denham: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. Over a period of eight years, Wessex regional health authority spent more than £60 million on the failed regional information systems plan—or RISP—computer project. Millions were wasted. The Public Accounts Committee will now examine the Wessex saga in detail, but it might not have done so had it not been for inquiries by Computer Weekly, The Independent and myself.
Ministers have known everything that I am about to say for months and, in some cases, years. They have done nothing to reveal the full facts. It is only today, faced with the prospect of this debate, that Ministers have announced new measures to control computer projects in the health service. Control will never be successful, however, until the full lessons of Wessex have been learnt.
I have four main concerns: the failure of the Department of Health to control Wessex and its active connivance at the cover-up; the network of personal, political, commercial and corporate interests that exploited Wessex and their interest in concealing the truth; the way in which Wessex sought to divert attention from key aspects of the RISP project, particularly those personally involving Sir Robin Buchanan, the chairman of Wessex and now of the NHS supplies authority; the abject failure in nearly every case to recover public funds or to take effective action against companies or individuals.
In September 1986, Arthur Andersen and Co. and IBM received the main RISP contract. Public concern broke out almost immediately because in May 1986 the tendering process had been reopened to enable the IBM-Andersen bid to move from fourth place to become the prime contractor.
The report that the Government had wanted to suppress reveals that, during that process, the RHA chair and/or the regional general manager were lobbied aggressively by people with vested interests: Jim Foster, who was an RHA member and also a board member of IBM; Sir Edwin Nixon, the then chairman of IBM, who became deputy chairman of Natwest; Sir Anthony Cleaver, the chief executive of IBM; and the noble Lord Jenkin, a consultant to Arthur Andersen, who clearly had unusual knowledge of rival bids which the district auditor implies were wrongly obtained through other Andersen consultancies with Wessex. At one stage, Andersen was allowed to accompany a Wessex visit to the United States to assess a DEC bid even though Andersen was a direct rival in competition. Andersen also took part in Wessex debriefings. There was much to cover up.
At least one company protested to the Department of Health. In 1986, the district auditor submitted a report in confidence which I am informed covered all the major issues revealed in the 1992 confidential auditor's report.
The Department knew what had happened, but immediately moved to conceal the truth. In December 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who had advised Wessex on any aspect of the prospective

contracts before tenders were invited. He was given a list of consultants employed between October 1984 and October 1985, but those arbitrary dates excluded Andersen's role dating back to 1983. The Minister did not draw attention to Andersen's role in 1986. At the time that that question was answered, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was a junior Health Minister. Her husband and brother-in-law worked for Andersen.
On 17 December 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) asked the right hon. Member for Braintree on what basis, and by whom, the tendering companies for the Wessex RHA were selected. That question was answered five months later on 15 May, the day when Parliament was dissolved for the 1987 general election in which health was to be a major issue. A major scandal involving companies with individuals at the heart of the NHS and involving senior members of the Conservative party would have done grave damage to the Government. What better way to conceal a disingenuous answer than to wait five months until everyone's attention was elsewhere.
Not much happened in those five months. On 15 May the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley:
I understand from the regional health authority that the tendering companies were selected under the EC-GATT arrangements."—[Official Report, 15 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 431.]
On 21 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), told me
There is no record of any correspondence between the right hon. Member for Braintree and the then Regional General Manager&it is possible that such assurances were given verbally although it would now be impossible to verify…it is clear that this procedure was not followed on subsequent re-evaluation of the tenders, which led to the contract being awarded to a different company than that originally selected.
It took five months to make one alleged and unrecorded telephone call to produce an answer which was simply wrong and which the Department must have known, or suspected, was wrong.
It is not clear whether the district auditor who compiled the 1992 confidential report was asked to examine or was given access to the Department of Health's files on RISP. Last July, Wessex said
the people with principal responsibility for RISP in the period 1982 to 1989 are no longer employed by the RHA.
That was carefully worded and calculated to divert attention from three people associated with RISP after 1989. Sir Robin Buchanan became chairman in August 1988 after chairing the Bath district health authority when he must have been aware of the problems with RISP. Far from wrapping up RISP, he drove it forward long after health district support had collapsed.
Harry Tuffill was seconded to Wessex from IBM at Buchanan's request and reported directly to him. He was to abuse the conflict of interest inherent in the position that Buchanan had created for him. He did not leave Wessex until 1990.
The third was not a matter for Wessex staff: Philip Sellers was chairman of CSL. CSL advised Wessex on the privatisation of its computer division—the division responsible for RISP—and, through subsidiaries CFM and WIS, took over services. As the district auditor noted,


The involvement of CSL as consultant and supplier was contrary to accepted best practice.
The WIS contract was negotiated before Buchanan became chair and signed just afterwards. It effectively enabled Sellers' company to determine Wessex's computer budget in the company's interests. According to the district auditor,
at worst, CSL knowingly or recklessly intended to promote its own interests and those of its subsidiary, WIS, at the expense of the RHA and public funds.
Did Sir Robin end this deplorable situation? Far from it. He tried to raise a loan from Sellers to fund RISP in Bath, which, given WIS's position, would have been used to fund work by Sellers' companies, CSL and CFM, which enjoyed a unique ability to exploit the region, and would have been repaid by the taxpayer.
Sir Robin personally renegotiated the WIS contract in February 1990 on terms even more favourable to WIS. By this time, RISP was collapsing. Eight out of 10 districts had refused to accept the system. RISP should have been closed down, but Sir Robin went ahead. Bypassing the region's internal and external legal advisers, he brought in solicitors, Blake Lapthorn, who had never worked for the RHA before and who reported directly to him. The contract removed penalty and performance clauses. New provisions, which Deloittes advised against, were incorporated in the new contract that Sir Robin personally negotiated.
What was the position? WIS, a private company, could undertake work for other organisations knowing that its staff costs and overheads were already paid for—even overpaid for—by Wessex. The contract signed with WIS paid for 40 staff more than worked for the company. Work done by WIS for Rampton and Broadmoor was undertaken at non-commercial rates but was of course pure profit. Wessex was meant to get a share of the profits, but the original 50:50 split was altered under Sir Robin's chairmanship to become two to one in favour of WIS. According to the district auditor, there are strong grounds for questioning whether Wessex regional health authority has received full credit for profits earned on outside work undertaken by WIS. A payment of £68,000 "would appear suspect", as WIS recorded a turnover of £4·7 million.
When WIS and its parent company, CFM, ended their relationship with Wessex in 1991, they took possession of office equipment and personal computers. According to the auditor,
it is probable that the equipment taken by CFM included items that were the property of Wessex. CFM should be required to prove that equipment they had taken possession of had not been paid for by Wessex.
Under the contract, WIS records should have been made available to the auditors. To date, the confidential report records that
these records have not been examined by Wessex or its internal auditors.
Sir Robin Buchanan attempted to borrow money from Sellers to implement the RISP project. He negotiated the WIS contract in Mr. Sellers' favour, but he did not apply elementary audit procedures to Sellers' companies. Sir Robin Buchanan is now chairman of the NHS supplies authority, responsible for £4 billion a year of public money.
The Department had said that the WIS contract should be tightened. It knew that it had not been. The Department did nothing. I understand that one district

auditor who reported on RISP to the Department of Health from 1986 to 1989 finally resigned from the service in frustration, sending a file to the Department.
The district auditor said that Wessex should take action against CSL for breach of contract. He said that it should take action against CSL and WIS in respect of neglect and/or fraudulent advice and should recover money paid ultra vires or for work not needed by, and in respect of which no benefit accrued to, the regional health authority. He also said that Wessex should take action against Andersen/IBM; and that IBM should be asked to return part of the money paid for a 3090 computer, bearing in mind that the RHA had a good legal claim against the IBM secondee, Tuffill, who advised against cancellation.
I have, before this debate, tabled a series of early-day motions covering the auditor's main conclusions about the action that Wessex should have taken. To date, all action against IBM and Andersen has been dropped. Ministers have told me in parliamentary answers that this is entirely a matter for Wessex, but Wessex is the very organisation chaired by the very individual with the most to lose from full exposure of these facts in a court of law.
Wessex is now attempting to avoid court action involving WIS and its parent companies, again avoiding exposure and public scrutiny of private settlements. No doubt Ministers will say that this is a matter for Wessex as well, but it is all a convenient means of hiding the truth.
Full exposure would not just hit those directly associated with the Wessex saga. In his report, the auditor criticises the NHS management executive for lack of co-ordination, lack of effective management and project control, little attempt to cost-justify it, and too much reliance on suppliers. Much responsibility for the state of affairs that allowed Wessex to be exploited must lie with the chief executive of the NHS management board. From 1986 to 1989 the chief executive of the board was Sir Leonard Peach, now chairman of the Police Complaints Authority. He had been seconded to that post from IBM, which continued to pay his salary.
The drive to bring business principles into the NHS laid bare the heart of the NHS to business exploitation and a network of influence with close connections to the Conservative party. That, above all, is why everyone has been so anxious to cover up the RISP affair.
The Public Accounts Committee inquiry is welcome, but I believe that an inquiry is also needed into the conduct of Ministers and the Department. I believe that at every stage there were Ministers and officials who were aware of what was happening in Wessex, but did nothing about it. I want an inquiry that will reveal how much the Department knew, when it knew it, who was informed, what advice Ministers gave, what decisions were taken about what, if anything, to reveal, and why so little was done. I want to know tonight whether the Government will encourage and support such an inquiry.
Meanwhile, the people of Wessex should be compensated for what they have lost. Tonight in aging Victorian wards at the Royal South Hants hospital in my constituency, patients will be settling down to sleep in wards that are run down, outdated and impossible to maintain at today's standards. Despite the care that patients receive from staff, those conditions should not exist in the NHS. It would cost £10 million to replace those wards—money that has been wasted on the RISP scandal. Will the Government refund the people of Wessex for what they have lost because of their neglect in recent years?
On 11 February, the hon. Member for Bolton, West told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer):
I have every confidence in Sir Robin Buchanan".—[Official Report, 11 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 762.]
Does he still have that confidence? When I raised this matter at Question Time on 23 February, the Minister told me:
Waste is something that we do not recognise."—[Official Report, 23 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 749.]
I wonder whether the Minister can now recognise what has been happening in our health service. When the NHS was set up under a Labour Government by Nye Bevan, the idea was that the wealth of the community should be used to banish the pain and suffering arising from ill health. When we see how companies and powerful individuals, who read like the roll call of the British establishment, have got into the NHS and used and manipulated it for their own benefit, we realise how far we have come and how low the Government have sunk.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on his success in the ballot for a debate on the Adjournment of the House. As I know from previous questions of his interest in information systems in the NHS, it is no suprise that he has chosen today to raise the matter of the Wessex regional information systems plan. However, there is no connection between the debate and the announcement of various future monitoring systems for the procurement of information technology in the NHS, made at Health Care Computing 1993. That is the largest such event in Europe, so it is not surprising that I made such an announcement in Harrogate this morning.
Before I reply to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is important to make abundantly clear, in case any hon. Members or the public are under any misconception, that those events did not occur yesterday, this year or even in this decade. The matters to which he referred were proposed first by the Wessex regional health authority in the early 1980s, and were developed from 1984 until cancelled in early 1990 by the then new regional general manager of Wessex RHA.
That is not to say that I am trying to, or would, defend what occurred on the project during that period. We do not defend what appears to be a gross mishandling of public money, and neither does the regional health authority. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said on 10 February that she welcomed the decision by the Public Accounts Committee to commission a further report on the project for the Comptroller and Auditor General. We believe that it is important that the matters should be studied and lessons learnt. That is also why I welcome the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman on that important matter.
Before I go any further, I must say that the hon. Gentleman has used his parliamentary privilege to cast aspersions on the integrity of a number of people in public life. I found particularly regrettable the mention, which he did not develop, of my hon. Friend the Member for

Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and her work with a certain company. I think that he would not dare repeat several of his remarks outside the House.

Mr. Denham: If the Minister reads the official record, he will see that I put together a conjunction of simple factual statements. I have not repeated certain allegations that were made in 1986 about the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Does the Minister agree that the best way to resolve the issues involving that hon. Member and others would be for him to support an independent inquiry into the conduct of the Department of Health, and of Ministers, which I urged on him earlier in the debate?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Public Accounts Committee will be investigating all those matters.
I do not propose to defend the actions of individuals previously employed by Wessex RHA. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of those individuals appeared in court in Winchester earlier this month to answer for their actions. I am here to defend the actions of the current management of Wessex RHA, which has devoted a considerable amount of time to ensuring that all factors contributing to that have been fully investigated and that budgetary, financial and management lessons have been identified and learnt.
It is important to remember that it was the current regional general manager, fully supported by his regional chairman, Sir Robin Buchanan, who took urgent action on his arrival in the region to rectify the weaknesses inherited from the previous general manager which were the root cause of the RISP affair. It was these remedial actions that the district auditor commended in his report in the public interest.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that on many occasions the Wessex RHA tried to cover up or suppress the events concerned with RISP. That is rubbish. I remind him that it was the RHA which invited the district auditor to carry out his investigations. It was the RHA which held a press conference in July 1992 to announce the findings of the district auditor. It was the RHA which on several other occasions held press conferences at which it always answered questions put to it. In addition, the RHA and its staff have complied fully with requests from the National Audit Office, the District Audit Service, the Public Accounts Committee and the NHS Management Executive for any information or clarification on matters relating to RISP. I know that they will continue to do so despite allegations to the contrary from sections of the press and the hon. Gentleman. I find the hon. Gentleman's allegations all the more remarkable as I understand that the regional chairman wrote to him in November 1992 offering to discuss his concerns and to answer fully any questions that he wished to put. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has now taken up that offer to discuss the matter personally.
With regard to requests that Ministers should——

Mr. Denham: Will the Minister note that I accepted the invitation before I knew that I had secured tonight's Adjournment debate?

Mr. Sackville: Indeed the hon. Gentleman did—several months after the offer was made.
I have mentioned the very thorough actions taken by Wessex RHA to rectify the organisational and financial


weaknesses where they were found to be the main cause of the failure of RISP. Before I turn to the actions that my Department has taken as a result of this and other problems with computer systems in Wessex, the west midlands and elsewhere, I should mention that legal actions are being taken by Wessex RHA as a result of its and the district auditor's inquiries.
As recommended in the district auditor's report, Wessex RHA has taken comprehensive legal advice. As a result of that advice, the RHA has reached a settlement with one of the computer suppliers, AT and T Istel. It was also decided at that time, on the basis of independent legal advice, not to pursue legal action against Arthur Andersen and Co. and IBM in respect of the contract for three of the five core systems which were to make up RISP. The RHA is taking actions against other companies involved in RISP and it would be inappropriate at this time to comment further on that. I would wish to reassure the House, however, that Wessex RHA is pursuing all avenues for legal redress. In addition, on the basis of the confidential information provided by the district auditor, the Hampshire constabulary has been pursuing its own inquiries into possible criminal charges resulting from the RISP project.
I turn to the actions taken by my Department to seek to ensure that events such as this one cannot be repeated. Earlier, as I have said, I addressed the 1993 conference in Harrogate. I was able to announce a series of measures to be taken to increase our control over future investment in information technology. Before describing them, I would not wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or anyone else, to gain the impression that the example that has been quoted is in any way typical of the investment that the NHS has made and makes in IT.
At today's prices, there are about £800 million-worth of computers operational in the NHS. Most of the money spent has gone into operational systems in hospitals such as patient administration systems, pathology and radiology. The majority of these systems are working day in and day out without problem. Unfortunately, things can and do go wrong. The events in Wessex and the west midlands, and unfortunately in the London ambulance service, are the results of what happens when things do go wrong.
There is never any simple explanation. We shall continue to study all the projects to learn from our mistakes. We have already identified some common threads, especially managers and IT professionals losing

touch with the end users of systems; unrealistically high expectations; lack of formal project control, including financial control; lack of informed involvement by senior management; and, in some places, a level of IT skills that does not match what is required.

Mr. Denham: The Minister's list is interesting, but it does not include corruption, the use of influence, the use of insider knowledge, close relationships between NHS staff and suppliers of equipment, and the exploitation of those weaknesses by unscrupulous firms. Does he agree that those should also be on his list of what has gone wrong with the health authorities in Wessex and other places?

Mr. Sackville: If any of those allegations are proven, appropriate action will be taken.
Last December I announced the launch of a national strategy for IT. I stipulated that all future IT investments of more than £1 million would be reviewed by the management executive in the Department of Health against explicit criteria. I shall briefly list them—a properly structured business case based on good investment appraisal; a clear plan for benefits realisation; sufficient skilled and experienced IT staff; commitment from the chief executive, board chairman, clinicians, nurses and everyone involved to implementation and benefits realisation; proper project management; an adequately resourced and structured training programme; and a clear post-implementation evaluation of investment. I stress, as I did at the conference earlier today, that not only projects costing more than £1 million will be evaluated against the criteria; I have asked all authorities approving all substantial investments to use them.
I reiterate my appreciation to the regional chairman and the regional general manager of Wessex for their considerable efforts both in dealing with the affair and in the efficient and effective way that the health service is managed in Wessex. I have every confidence in Sir Robin Buchanan as chairman of the Wessex RHA and, indeed as chairman of the supplies authority. Only with his strong backing has the regional general manager been able to take the necessary actions, so commended by the district auditor, to rectify the weaknesses that led to the events mentioned in the debate. I have full confidence in the work that they and the authority have done to investigate these matters fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.